< 5 April	7 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 Closing because of Speedy Deletion of article as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Industry Standard Anthology[edit]

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

An anthology published by a minor publisher and featuring unpublished/unknown artists and writers. Does not assert notability, nor does it seem to have any. Addionne (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BK. There appear to be no substative sources (other than the publisher) on the Web, and Google News, Books, and Scholar trun up zilch. Deor (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio of the product page from the publisher, and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab Zargari[edit]

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

Completely unsourced Biography of someone who's career might be prolific, but does not seem to meet WP:N Addionne (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot see notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page needs citations, nothing here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:14, 12 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EXFORK[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a defunct band that asserts no notability except for a claim to have worked once with a well known producer. That producer's website offers no indication this is true. [1] Addionne (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if we could verify that the band worked with the particular producer in question, that wouldn't establish notability. In any case, there isn't significant coverage about them to establish notability. An earlier version of the article includes some assertions of media coverage. It is unclear how reliable those sources really are. I was able to find the Shredding Paper review noted in the earlier version, and it turns out that what I thought was a snippet from a review is in fact the entire review. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 11 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, snow delete as an obvious hoax. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chilli hiccups[edit]

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

Placing this here because I was unsure if it quite met the level for a CSD. This is an unnecessary trivia article which even uses other Wikipedia articles as sources. The article on Hiccups already mentions spicy foods as a possible cause. A full half of this article contains restatements of the definition of hiccups from Hiccup. Seems pointless. Not notable. Taroaldo (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: The first part of the article is a straight copy from the Hiccups article. None of the references back up the statements in the article such as 9 out of 10 people get hiccups because of chili. One of the references is another Wikipedia article, another is a chacha search result and the other two don't mention chili hiccups at all except as a passing mention that spicy food can sometimes cause hiccups (which is already stated in the Hiccups article. ScottSteiner (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT, to say the least. Pointless nonsense. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 00:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under WP:Horseshit: "A chilli hiccup is caused by consuming hot or spicy meals which can irritate this nerve and can cause hiccups in 9 out of 10 people." Carrite (talk) 03:22, 7 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. postdlf (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Sanger Awards[edit]

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

Seems to fail the general notability guideline. There are references, but most are old and mention the awards in passing, if they are even accessible. Deserves mention in the Planned Parenthood article, but not its own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching in the singular "Margaret Sanger Award" produces plenty of in-depth coverage in Google News and Google Books. The fact that references are old is not a valid argument for deletion, as notability is not temporary, and asking for "new" references is recentism, which we need to guard against when writing an encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage for an award by a clearly notable organization. The Academy Awards it's not, but it's certainly too long to merge back into Planned Parenthood's article. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't need a list of everyone who's ever won it. We just need a section in the PP article showing the notable people who have won. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response The majority of the winners are notable enough to already have Wikipedia articles. The others should also be listed, as some of them may be notable as well. There is a red link, which means an editor thinks that person should have an article. I see no valid reason to cut any of this encyclopedic content. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable coverage. Did you try, say, Google News? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328 & Jclemens.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Award bestowed annually for 45 years by a very high-profile organization. There needs to be an article on this award that other articles may link to, explaining what the award is to Wikipedia readers. Notable award by a notable group and a useful page, all in one. Carrite (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the recipients are unknowns, the award seems to be poorly known. Merge the notable incidents back into the section on the PP article where they came from. - Haymaker (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Haymaker is entitled to hold a well-known POV, but I am also entitled to refute that editor's factual errors. Haymaker calls most of the recipients "unknowns". The fact is that 56 awards have been given, mostly to individuals but also to a few organizations. Of these, 34 (or 60%) are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, and these "unknowns" include a U.S. president, a Supreme Count justice, several members of Congress, a governor, John D. Rockefeller III, Martin Luther King Jr., Dear Abby, Ann Landers, Jihan Sadat and movie stars including Katherine Hepburn and Jane Fonda. These recipients and many others are hardly "unknowns". Haymaker also states "the award seems to be poorly known", despite it being described in detail by many newspapers and magazines, including the New York Times, the Toledo Blade, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Miami News, Jet magazine, and also by pro-life opponents of Planned Parenthood such as the Weekly Standard, which roundly criticized Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for accepting the award in 2009. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That may be so, but does it really deserve its own article? A paragraph or two in the main article would suffice. Also, please don't try to discredit Haymaker by saying he has a "well-known POV" when the creator of this article has a very well-known POV. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response Just how is it trying to "discredit" Haymaker when I acknowledged that this editor is entitled to a personal point of view on a controversial issue? I know that the original author has the opposite point of view, but he hasn't edited Wikipedia for six weeks and so far isn't participating in this AfD debate. You and I have points of view as well, and that is fine as long as we edit Wikipedia using neutral point of view language and presentation of the sources. Despite clear shortcomings and the unfinished nature of this article, it is written fairly neutrally, in my opinion. Instead of trying to "discredit" Haymaker, I was trying to point out factual inaccuracies in Haymaker's deletion argument. If anything I have written here is factually inaccurate, I would expect you to do the same. In my opinion, neither you nor Haymaker have advanced any policy-based reasons to delete this article on a notable topic, and instead rely on your personal opinions and preferences that the article be deleted and coverage of the award be limited to the Planned Parenthood article. The closing administrator can evaluate who is making persuasive arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment It fails the general notability guideline. Most references only mention the award in passing or that Hilary Clinton won it. It is notable enough to be in the PP article, but doesn't warrant its own. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite the contrary. I think I see where you made a mistake - try the Google News search with "Margaret Sanger Award" rather than "Awards," you get hundreds of hits. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right, I wasn't seeing that. However, I still think it belongs in the PP article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The awards have been reported on regularly in mainstream press as evidenced by a google news search for "Margaret Sanger Award" in the singular as noted by other editors above. This includes pieces behind pay walls by major dailies such as the NY Times. In terms of those accessible without additional payment, we have the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Toledo Blade, Miami News, and Herald-Journal just as a sample from a much larger result set in the news search. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 11 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 merge to List of cryptids. Sandstein 05:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinoceros dolphin[edit]

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

Why should Wikipedia have an article about an imaginary species whose claims to notability are a self-published Angelfire website and an appearance in a fictional cartoon show? Prod was removed because "theres a source" [sic], presumably referring to the self-published Angelfire website. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination completed for above user. lifebaka++ 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proper sources. No evidence of notability. No dolphin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Hardly any content and only one feeble reference. There is nothing wrong with having articles about fictitious creatures as long as it is made clear that they are fictitious and they are backed up with some worthwhile references. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was all set to !vote delete here, but then I took a look at Google Books and to my surprise there seem to be several mentions of this beastie in what seem to be legitimate books about cryptozoology.[2] Could other interested editors here please take a look at these and see what they think?: [3](especially pp. 458-459), [4], [5] --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that 'legitimate books about cryptozoology' would avoid such ridiculous practices as assigning a species name to an animal that has yet to be verified, and adding photoshopped images that don't even match the description in the only (dubious) source given, which is the problem here. As always, there is nothing to prevent edits to an article during AfD, so if the sources you provide are acceptable, and they actually provide evidence that this new species might exist, I'd be prepared to reconsider my delete !vote. I suggest you edit the article, and cite the sources for what they actually say - provided you are satisfied they meet WP:RS for what you wish to claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled into the same links, and became equally hesitant. What they do prove is that this isn't just some random thing an editor made up. That being said, they're pretty weak in terms of coverage. We wouldn't consider a character in a fiction book who gets that much coverage to be notable, and the same should probably stand for an entry in a fake encyclopedia. And it looks like someone didn't put too much effort into changing the image--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is laughable, but as far as sourcing goes there seems to be a good number of sources that mention and discuss this creature. Given the above sources, if they can be added to the article, then I'm a for sure keep!vote - and I dont see why they cant be incorperated. This is an article waiting to be made on a notable enough topic. Outback the koala (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of cryptids. I looked at the sources on this.

"Mysterious creatures: a guide to cryptozoology, Volume 1" - significant mentions in a credible (and apparently non-self-pub, 2002) book. [6]
"The Annals and Magazine of Natural History: zoology, botany, and geology" (published 1857). Significant mention and given age of book, shows good evidence the concept has had 150 years of "enduring notice". [7]
"Fictional Toothed Whales" and "Sea Cryptids". Appear to be the same/similar book by the title/length, and self-published (by the publishee). Not inclined to give these any real weight. [8][9]

While coverage is slim, it does seem to be genuine, and the concept, hoax, notion of a cryptid, or whatever this may be appears to have been noticed in reliable sources to a level that shows it has gained wider attention. We may not be able to say much on it though, so redirect and merge to list of cryptids. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the second sources that you correctly labeled unreliable are simply pages copied from Wikipedia, so I'd be careful not to use them as sources when a merge is performed.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those last two "sources" are verbatim copies of Wikipedia content. See Books LLC. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of cryptids. FT2's analysis convinces me. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to List of Cryptids. FT2 has a fair argument. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge what can be sourced, delete the rest.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to the extent that it's sourced. FT2 has persuaded me that this is part of a broader notable phenomenon. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge as per above. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:44, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally blank page[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. An Internet search yielded no scholarly or journalistic treatment of the subject. A cursory review of the article history indicates that the article may never have had a reliably sourced statement in its six-year life. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase is an oddity of fairly common occurrence. There is some curious historical information on it here. Taroaldo (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think an encyclopedia-worthy article could be written on this topic. It has to deal with the technology of printing and bookbinding. Tag for sources, leave it be. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Worthy topic, needs work.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Needs work and sources, but I think this belongs on WP. Depending on the amount of source content available, merging into another article might be more appropriate, but I'm not sure where it would belong. --Tathar (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a fairly widespread practice in publishing. Bob talk 09:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's actually more Google News coverage for Intentionally left blank, which is a redirect to this page. At any rate, clearly notable concept which you're welcome to improve. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think I may actually have to use the much hated "easily improved" for this one. Definitely in a crappy state, and I'll try to help out if I have time, but enough coverage is not only available but easy to adapt to the article. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a common practice in the publishing industry.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No conceivable encyclopedic article can be written about this. There are many pages marked in this way, but that doesn't make the subject notable, or even interesting. Are all the Keep votes jokes? Dingo1729 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No. Carrite (talk) 00:55, 12 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; the article has been deleted at the request of the author. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeocursor[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. An anonymous editor posted on the talk page that "Archaeocursor" isn't real. It's an April Fool's Day Joke that started on a Polish forum dedicated to dinosaurs, here (in Polish): http://www.forum.dinozaury.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=3927 For that reason, this page should be deleted. The page was blanked, then tagged for speedy-deletion by user:Dinoguy2. If it is a hoax, it is not sufficiently blatant to qualify under the strict wording of the CSD criteria. I have declined the speedy-deletion but am posting it here for further investigation and resolution. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 08:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: A search of google books and google scholar shows no use of the name "Archaeocursor" and no descriptive paper by Sereno in the journal Kirtlandia (which has not published an issue this year at all. It may need to be kept as a page on the April fools joke if the name gets traction in the web/media.--Kev min § 21:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it does appear to be the case that this is an escaped April Fool's Day gag. Bahariasauroidea needs to go on the same grounds. Note for future gagmeisters: if Paul Sereno, a past master of publicity, was publishing a new genus of feathered dinosaur, I doubt it would be in Kirtlandia, and there would certainly be a press conference. ;) J. Spencer (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Not only does Kirtlandia not have a recent issue out, Sereno's website also lists no such sensational discovery – neither on his publications page, nor on his discoveries page. If the hoax gets sufficient traction in the media to become notable (for which I see no signs yet), we should then write an article on the hoax, not keep an article that is itself a hoax. --Lambiam 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sorry.. I was really excited when I saw this.. It is apparently too good to be true.. Rnnsh (talk) 09:41, 7 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. Sandstein 05:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Walker (ice hockey)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable junior hockey player. Fails WP:NHOCKEY Larkspurs (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really sure this had to come to Afd when it could have just been redirected back to his father as was done in the last Afd. As such, I suggest redirecting again. -DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY. It looks like he'll be on pace to hit the 100 game threshold mid-season next year. I wouldn't oppose recreation then. I really don't understand the reasoning behind redirecting him to his father's article. TerminalPreppie (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd rather see a red link or no link than a redirect. Walker doesn't pass NHOCKEY right now, so I'd say delete. Canada Hky (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY, of course. He's had a modest season, and many low-round young draftees in his position move on to other careers in the offseason. Ravenswing 00:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Patken4 (talk) 19:33, 12 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. postdlf (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay "Deviant" Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable musician by the standards of WP:MUS and WP:GNG. No credible claim for notability, in my opinion a candidate for speedy deletion, but CSD template has been removed by another editor. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability inferred or presented. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUS. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references that establish notability, none could be found with a (albeit quick) Google search. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in google news. Only mentions are on social networking sites. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:29, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mond software[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion candidate, not mine. Entirely unreferenced article about a non-notable product, an "Enterprise Service Bus", which is apparently what a private messaging and file sharing network starts calling itself when it has dreams beyond its station. No references, only links to its homepages. Google News has never heard of it; all hits are false positives. Article text is essentially a features list, a release history, and notes on what it can do for you. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article lacks 3rd party references to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article lacks notability--Whiteguru (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, no notability. It exists, but is not notable enough to have an encyclopedic entry. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage found to substantiate notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:31, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OPSGEAR[edit]

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

Questionable notability of this company; article contains no information to assess notability such as net or gross sales, number of employees, whether or not it is a private or public company, etc. Repeated attempts by multiple editors to de-spam this article (practically an advertorial) are repeatedly met with reversion. Google search showed no significant editorial information (i.e., news articles about the business aside from charitable activities) in the first several hundred hits. Risker (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the spammer has also repeatedly removed maintenance tags such as ((uncat)) or ((advert)), so I've applied revision review to the page while this discussion is open. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced spam. To make it even worse, the website includes a link designed to count sales referrals coming from the Wikipedia article; the spammer's reversions have included inserting that link, instead of the plain version of the company's web URL, into the infobox. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the article multiple times and anything that is remotely advertorial has been removed. I'm not sure why this particular article has been submitted for deletion. I understand that has not been categorized, but that is the only flaw I can see. Please assist me with categorization. Thanks. Jrom86, 7 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.198.158 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the alleged "references" I bothered to look at read like reprints of press releases. There is still plenty of blatant advertising in the article, from start to finish: a worldwide supplier of tactical equipment... The company's self-produced DVDs provide tactical training techniques useful for everyone.... Although the company is known for its military products, it is now offering more and more products to satisfy Law Enforcement needs.... Its dynamic environment and proven tools enable both civilian and operators alike the opportunity to be tested at the highest levels.... Not only does the company provide head-to-toe tactical gear and force-on-force training, but it also strives to make a difference in the world and work with others who are like minded.... OPSGEAR has pages on the popular social networks, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. These pages are constantly updated with the latest deals, new products, contests, etc. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - SudoGhost (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 11 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 due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Randall (political scientist)[edit]

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

This one's a bit of an edge case. As an academic for a major Canadian university, the possibility certainly does exist that he may be sufficiently notable to meet WP:ACADEMIC — but as written, the article doesn't actually demonstrate the notability of his work as a political scientist, such as naming actual works that he may have published or properly sourcing any of the unsubstantiated assertions made to the talk page that his work has had an influence on Canadian or international politics. As it stands, the only assertion of notability here that's actually supported by a valid source is his status as an unelected candidate in the current Canadian election — so while he might meet WP:ACADEMIC, the only thing that's properly verifiable right now is that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. I'm fully prepared to withdraw this nomination if the article sees sourcing improvements before close — but in its current form, the article doesn't really demonstrate his notability and isn't keepable without a bit of tender lovin' care. Procedural nomination, no !vote. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Randall's an elected member of the Royal Society of Canada. I think it should be sufficient for WP:prof notability.(Msrasnw (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It might be notable if it were sourced to a reliable media source independent of him (i.e. his own faculty page on the university's website doesn't count.) Notability on Wikipedia isn't just about being able to tick off boxes on a checklist; the claims need to be sourced to real sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had presumed a webpage on the University of Calgary would be deemed reliable as seems normal for academics. If the University of Calagary is not OK perhaps the ref to the Royal Society of Canada's page might be made. But I guess we would have the same problem there - as he is a fellow of the RSC it is not independent of him. I have added this in anycase. Best wishes anyway. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Factual information on university web pages is usually considered to be reliable provided that the page is hosted by the university. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Not exactly. It's valid as a supplementary source for informational purposes after notability has been demonstrated by other sources. But it's not valid as primary proof of notability by itself, because it's not independent of the topic (which is a core requirement of our reliable sourcing rules.) Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on basis of WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I see that the sourcing's been improved significantly. As promised, I now withdraw the nomination. Good job, guys. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 9 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. postdlf (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feat Factory[edit]

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

According to one short news article, this is the building where the British national taekwondo team trains. The team itself does not have a Wikipedia article (nor does any other national taekwondo team as far as I can tell). The building itself isn't independently notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this old factory building, except that the British taekwondo team trains there. I don't think that's enough to make it notable. Even in the BBC story on the team, it only gets a passing mention. Astudent0 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability; notability is not inherited. Janggeom (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing that shows this building is notable. Papaursa (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:32, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gas Theory of Universe Creation[edit]

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

Original research, PROD removed by author. GILO ^{ACCIDENT &}_EMERGENCY 18:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Irrespective of the actual merits of inclusion, I've blanked the article pending verification via OTRS for the material as it has been previously published elsewhere. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free web host. There's COI issues with this article, being that the author claims copyright ownership on the material that is being copyvio'ed. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for original research, among other reasons. We're not the place to publish new theories.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Marking this article with both COPYVIO and COI, whether due to ignorance or cynicism, disgusts me. Anarchangel (talk) 02:18, 8 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. AfD is not for making merge proposals, see Help:Merging for guidance. Sandstein 05:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esat Mobile Phone Licence Scandal[edit]

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

Suggest merging this into either an article for Michael Lowry or Denis O'Brien. Golgofrinchian (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Given the brevity of the article and the minimal information, I'd agree with merging into the appropriate Bio. Bagheera (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a major breaking scandal in Ireland with the potential to damage Ireland's reputation at a time when it is struggling for its very economic survival. I am attempting to highlight major corruption in Ireland. Please do not silence me - I am an individual fighting against govt and corporate corruption. Please do not take the side of those with money and power. Please keep Internet freedom alive. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerald ire (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think anyone here is trying to silence you. But I will, gently, point out that Wikipedia isn't a political blog or really the place to make political statements. Those of us suggesting a merge are doing so as members of the Wikipedia community, trying to maintain the highest standards we can for the project as an on-line Encyclopedia. As written, the information in this article appears to be better merged with one of the biographies than as a stand alone article. Perhaps, rather than using Wikipedia as your tool to fight corruption, you could approach it as the editor of an encyclopedia article and a member of a large, (ideally) neutral, on-line community. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The slightest of research would indicate this incident has been dominating national news, has been the subject of a half a decade long govt tribunal of inquiry with lasting effects, and has a major impact on some of the most important figures in the country. It is beyond question notable and deserving of an article, something which the nominator, in not bothering to make an argument for deletion in this AFD, would appear to tacitly acknowledge. And if the current state of the article is deemed so objectionable, the proper merge target is Moriarty_Tribunal#Second_mobile_phone_licence. A little more due diligence in future, please. Skomorokh 19:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can appreciate that now the article makes more sense. At the time of the nomination this was the entire article:It is alleged that as a result benefits extended to Michael Lowry by Denis O'Brien that Esat Digifone was given an unfair advantage in the procurement of a mobile phone operator's licence.^[1]. Being I am from the US what appeared as a minor complaint about a phone company contract seemed to warrant at least an AfD. Honestly at the time I nominated it might have qualified for a Speedy Delete. I thought doing an AfD would allow the author to flesh it out more and present it better, that is why I suggested a merge. As it stands now it makes much more sense, but I cannot tell how the future of an article may be, so I went with what would be considered a moderate level of response. That being said it still looks like it might merge better into one of the other articles, like many other scandals are added to the parent article. Thanks for your comments Skomorokh. Golgofrinchian (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but suggest a name change to Esat Digifone licensing controversy. Plenty of material for a stand-alone article. RashersTierney (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as it is non-notable on its own by any standard. Not even a huge amount of Irish coverage, and none outside AFAICT. Collect (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into whichever article fits best, this is an even which does not need mentioning outside of a section of an article. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a separate article - many other links beyond Messrs O'Brien and Lowry. And still highly contentious.Red Hurley (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The nominator has suggested merging and not deletion which does not require any discussion at AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight eisenhower world war II jacket[edit]

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

Non-notable jacket lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Eisenhower jacket was a notable uniform part in World War 2, but this particular jacket, part of a private collection, does not inherit that notability without satisfying the guideline WP:N via multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, even though some association with Eisenhower is claimed. Edison (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sell to the Pawn Stars and delete: interesting, but lacks independant notability and fails GNG. Editors should proabbly also weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwight Eisenhower's Rolex Watch. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwight Eisenhower's Rolex Watch. /Julle (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Take what information is supported by reliable sources, and place in article regarding Dwight D. Eisenhower. Subject of this article is not notable, whereas the type of the subject is, as stated prior. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest a merge to Eisenhower jacket but on second thought, it's not notable enough even for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 13 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. postdlf (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Eisenhower's Rolex Watch[edit]

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

Non-notable watch lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eisenhower's watch, if this is really it, would be a cool thing to own or to see, but no sources are presented to show that this item satisfies the general notability guideline WP:N, and notability is not inherited for every artifact said to have once been owned by a notable person. Edison (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. If the watch was more notable on its own, maybe, but it appears to just be a normal DateJust that was owned by Eisenhower. Also a photo of the watch might be useful, especially if it had the Rolex logo replaced by a Swastika. Golgofrinchian (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. If this is notable at all, it should be mentioned in Dwight D. Eisenhower. I very much doubt that is a good idea, though. /Julle (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lacks independant notability and fails the GNG. Editors should also visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwight eisenhower world war II jacket. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:33, 11 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. Consensus is that combining these topics into one article is original research. Sandstein 05:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli–Palestinian history denial[edit]

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

Article is a collection of a number of different topics tied together by the fact that they relate to Israel/Palestine. It's possible that each of them (Nakba denial, denial of the existence of Palestinians as a people, etc.) could be a separate article (and a couple of them already are), but as it is the sourcing for most of them is inadequate (for example, we would need sources commenting on Palestinian denial of a Jewish connection to Israel, not examples of Palestinians who deny a Jewish connection to Israel), and grouping them all together this way is in any case inappropriate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I saw the deletion nomination, I was ready to fight tooth and nail for it not to be deleted, but Roscelese makes some valid points. --GHcool (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Controversial doesnt equal non-notable. Notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who cited "controversial" as a reason for deletion? The argument I provided was that "Israeli-Palestinian history denial" isn't actually notable - some of the specific forms of denial may be, though the article doesn't bear that out, but the general topic, no. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Ross has said several times that what really sunk the Camp David talks in 2000 was that Arafat refused to make a specific counteroffer to the detailed Israeli proposal, but instead went around mumbling about how there was never any Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Such issues may often be buried in the western press under more dramatic stories, but they're as much of a continuing irritant to Israel-Arab relations as the Japanese textbook controversies are on the other side of the world... AnonMoos (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay, plain and simple, as the lead more or less declares. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Carrite. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bar for inclusion is supposed to rest on Wikipedia rules, not raised far above the head of the nominator standing on tiptoe on Wikipedia rules. The criteria for inclusion is less than "sources commenting on Palestinian denial of a Jewish connection to Israel", and the article contains more than just "examples of Palestinians who deny a Jewish connection to Israel", for instance Golda Meir's comments and the commentary on her words by James L. Gelvin: The Israel-Palestine conflict: one hundred years of war

The content needs work; the article can be WP:SPLIT when there is sufficient. Anarchangel (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A mishmash of criticisms from both sides of the conflict slapped together does not make for an actual article. Most of these, i.e. Nakba, Holocaust denial already cover the individual subject matter adequately. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is some pretty significant material. Official spokesmen for the [[[Palestinian Authority]] denying that the Holocaust happened, that the Jewish people were in the land in ancient times, and, pretty nearly that the events in the Bible happened. I came here trying to figure out who several editors who have written here were fighting so hard for what seemed to me an unsubstantiated argument on another page. However that may be, this article is about real and significant material and should be kept.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that the topic of Holocaust denial within the PA is important, but the topic is covered adequately in the main Holocaust denial topic. --GHcool (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of disparate quotes mashed together to make an article. If any of this is relevant to a different article, it can be included there, but there's no way to salvage the article as a whole.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited sources establish significant notability. Marokwitz (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV essay. Agree with Tarc that this is a mishmash of synthesis. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete each of these topics may be notable on its own (albeit perhaps best dealt with as a section of another article) but lumping these seemingly disparate topics together seems like original synthesis. GabrielF (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno where people got the idea that article subjects can be SYNTH or OR, but it is mistaken; article subjects are either notable or not. If scholars have written about the subject, then it can be the subject of an article. If what you mean is that the article shows scholars speaking on subjects other than the subject covered by the title of the article, then I suggest you bring some examples, rather than assertions. Anarchangel (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And have scholars written about "Israeli-Palestinian history denial"? Or have they written about individual topics like Nakba denial and Temple denial? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article subject can absolutely be both notable and original synthesis. An example is Anti-Iranian sentiment, specifically as it existed before Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Iranianism. Nobody was denying that discrimination against Iranians was not notable, but the article at that point was lumping together everything from Genghis Khan to the ancient greeks to Saddam Hussein under the title of Anti-Iranianism and attaching such a headline to such disparate things clearly constituted original synthesis. Ultimately the article only survived because something like 75% of it was eliminated and the topic was narrowed, although editors have suggested that it could still benefit from being split or renamed. GabrielF (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly not an actual topic but a forced combination of separate topics. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:00, 11 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. Sandstein 05:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies of Harry Potter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While the Harry Potter franchise is notable, notability is not inherited to every content fork. This article is an arbitary content fork and an unnecessary split, composed exclusively of a list of miscellaneous information, not notable by itself. Most of the 101 references used in the article are for descriptions of the parodies, barely a few have critical commentary (none related to the parody itself) and none show how notable a topic "Parodies of Harry Potter" is or how notable any of the parodies is.

Previous keep votes in other nominations claimed that the article is fixable, but ignored whether or not the topic is notable. Doing a quick search engine test, I found that most link results are recycling material from this article, but none resembles a reliable third-party source independent of the subject to presume notability. In fact, none of the references within the article have a topic called "Parodies of Harry Potter", making the text rely sometimes on original research by synthesis like with the mention of "Harry Potter Bad Roommate" or "The Capping Show Returns".

It is my opinion that the topic "Parodies of Harry Potter" does not meet the general notability guideline since it does not have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to presume notability. I also don't think that the article meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since the topic is trivial, non-encyclopedic and falls into what Wikipedia is not, by being an indiscriminate collection of information, a complete exposition of all possible details and an unnecessary content fork.

Instead of being a summary of accepted knowledge mentioned in the article Harry Potter or in Harry Potter fandom, this article cherry picks several parodies to create the text, with no regard as to whether the parodies themselves are notable or not. Since Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details, I do not believe that "Parodies of Harry Potter" is a topic that warrants its own article. The individual parodies should be mentioned in the articles of the notable subjects, such as Treehouse of Horror XII, and those which are from publications noted by their parodies (such as Mad (magazine)) or non-notable should be omitted altogether. Also, Harry Potter is not the only franchise that has multiple parodies. Several other franchises and classic works have at least as many parodies as Harry Potter, but that doesn't make the parodies notable or non-trivial to warrant a whole article about the many times that the works have been parodied. Jfgslo (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed in the past six months since this was last kept. One needn't have each source use the phrase "parody of harry potter" to be such. Common sense applies and is not OR. We get that you don't like it, Jfgslo, but repeated nominations against clear past consensus are unmerited. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you don't need to check the phrase "parody of Harry Potter", you have to show that such parodies have significant coverage in reliable sources to presume notability, which the article doesn't since it only shows that it has been parodied multiple times, just like any other franchise. Most of the references used in the article are trivial mentions or primary sources which fall into the criteria of what Wikipedia is not. Because of this, I believe that there is no presumed notability for an article that lists a multitude of non-notable parodies with detailed descriptions of the parodies themselves. WP:OR applies because all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source and that is not the case in these parodies since almost all of them aren't showing notability and some aren't even sourced, so I do not believe that it is common sense to cite unreferenced non-notable parodies, such as Youtube videos, to presume that "parodies of Harry Potter" is notable as a topic. Also, the first AfD was a no consensus, the second one was not closed by an administrator and it was not a clear consensus and also the third one was not a complete consensus. Furthermore, consensus can change. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. As I said, none of the previous keep votes in other nominations ever addressed the notability of the topic, most only argued that it's a fixable article. My contention is that the topic doesn't even meet the general notability guideline or the criteria of appropriate topics for lists and neither the sum of non-notable parodies. The only claim to notability of the parodies that I have seen is an article written in the Times by Andrew Lycett saying that the Harry Potter series has been the subject of parodies more than any other literary work, which only shows that Harry Potter is so notable that it has multiple parodies, not that the parodies themselves are notable and merit an article. Jfgslo (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. Nothing has changed since the last two nominations and nothing presented has convinced me this isn't a perfectly valid topic for a WP article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't encourage articles for every work that has ever been parodied, the Harry Potter series has the distinction of being the subject of more parodies than any other literary work [10], and the article is well sourced, setting an example for any additions. I think that it may need to lose some of the pop culture references, but parodies of Harry Potter have become an industry. Mandsford 20:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jclemens. Also, while I don't think it's really required for this discussion, the text does provide some additional context as to the significance of Potter parodies, such as the material about parody misinterpretations leading to school ban demands, urban legends, and other hi-jinx.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per the topic of Harry Potter parodies itself being a valid and easily sourcable notable topic covered in news sources books and scholars. As was stated at the previous AFD, concerns are fixable and the article expandable, with no mandate or requirement that it be done NOW. The way we cover topics that may not themselves individually notable is to have them in a combination article that addresses the entire notable topic with sourcing of the indvidual elements. Being able to then ourselves see the wide and persistant coverage available is not OR. The inclusion criteria are not indescriminate. And per WP:SPLIT there is far too much sourced information to place in some other article. A list with specific inclusion criteria is neither "arbitrary" nor "miscellaneous", and as as a demonstrably notable topic, this one serves the project and its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this long text, but I feel that I needed to point out a few things. First of all, I would like to point out that it is precisely because of this type of search results that I'm convinced that this topic does not have notability. As stated in WP:BEFORE, before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, one has to make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist, which I did and this is the detailed explanation. Per WP:GNG, significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Sources for notability purposes should be secondary sources and independent of the subject and excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject (in this case the individual parodies of Harry Potter or Harry Potter), which is what none of the sources in Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News show.

For example, while using Google Books with the search terms "Harry Potter" +parody, one gets 862 results, but most of them consist of primary sources, that is, individual parodies that aren't being reviewed by a reputable publication and which are not notable themselves, such as "Henry Potty and the Pet Rock", "Barry Trotter and the unauthorized parody", "Barry Trotter and the Shameless Parody" or "Harry Putter and the Chamber of Cheesecakes". Other results are either from sources that are not independent of the subject, like "The Ultimate Guide to the Harry Potter Fandom" (which never treats in detail the subject of parodies, only four mentions and only two which allude to a Harry Potter parody), "J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels: a reader's guide" (which doesn't actually mention a single parody about Harry Potter) or "A guide to the Harry Potter novels" (which also doesn't mention a single parody about Harry Potter) or are trivial mentions like in "The Late Age of Print: Everyday Book Culture from Consumerism to Control" (which only mentions once a Harry Potter parody and it does it in reference to a lawsuit). Changing the term to "Harry Potter parody", the results are only 9 and all of them are trivial mentions. I have no idea how these results can be considered an indication of presumed notability when those that aren't primary sources (parodies) do not pass from a single sentence. I also don't understand how when some elements of Harry Potter are mentioned to be a parody of something in real life (see below) is getting equated to a parody about Harry Potter.

Using "Harry Potter" +parody with Google Scholar repeats several results from Google Books and is once again deceiving. For example, the paper "Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays" by Giselle Anatol, mentions nothing about a Harry Potter parody. It only mentions that some situations in the Harry Potter series are parodies of real life things, such as how Aunt Petunia is a parody of an overprotective mother, but there is nothing in the paper about a parody of the Harry Potter series. Same situation with "The Harry Potter novels as a test case for adolescent literature" by Roberta Seelinger, "From Elfland to Hogwarts, or the Aesthetic Trouble with Harry Potter" by John Pennington or any of the several search results. Once again, when using "Harry Potter parody", barely 12 results show up and, again, none actually amount more than a trivial mention.

When using a range from 2000 to 2011 with Google News, there are some results that actually mention parodies of Harry Potter. But all those that give a mention are news reports and per WP:N, a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of an event is not considered significant coverage. Also, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation specifically minor news stories is an example of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. For example, "Part one of final Harry Potter film premieres at midnight" a publication by Penn State students, merely give a passing mention about how the author enjoyed a Youtube video that is a parody of Harry Potter, but does not give a review or anything similar. "Read the Harry Potter Simulation winners" doesn't cover in detail any parody of Harry Potter. "Dutch court blocks release of Harry Potter copycat book" is a news report that doesn't provide critical analysis about the parody. Once again using "Harry Potter parody", there are only 32 results using the same period of time, and the only one that gives some detailed analysis is the Simpsons episode.

Most of the sources found with Google News do not address the parodies directly in detail, which in my opinion means that they do show significant coverage and, therefore, are useless for notability. And we have to discount results like the article "Does Harry Potter Parody Government Response To Terror?", which does not talk about a parody about Harry Potter but about the belief by some that Harry Potter is an analogy of the British government and terrorism, nothing to do with the notability of parodies of the Harry Potter series.

There are some like "Artist's Potter Parody Goes National" (a news report about Wizard People, Dear Reader, a parody that already has its own article) or "Wal-Mart cast as dark lord; Organized labor uses Harry Potter parody in viral marketing campaign against giant retailer" (a news report about a campaign against Wal-Mart) that do seem better than the rest, but I think it is clear that they do not provide significant coverage in reliable sources to establish a presumption of notability for an article called "Parodies of Harry Potter" and, so, the topic does not meet the WP:GNG. I must mention that using "parody of Harry Potter" gives even less results than "Harry Potter parody".

I also must stress that existence is not the same as notability nor does it prove it. The fact that there are several parodies of Harry Potter is notable, but that does not mean that the parodies themselves are notable and warrant an article for themselves, particularly when they are only mentioned in primary sources or in non-independent of the subject sources, which is the case in this article. Notability requires the existence of suitable reliable sources and, so far, I haven't found reliable sources that treat the parodies in detail in a non-trivial manner.

WP:ATD assumes that a page can be improved, but, outside of the opening paragraph (which is the only text in the article that provides context as to the significance of the Harry Potter parodies and can easily be merged in another Harry Potter article), all the content is non-notable and falls into WP:NOT, in my opinion. For example, none of the books in the book section is notable to be mentioned since none has reliable secondary sources that review them in detail and instead it's a list of non-notable parodies sourced with primary sources. And the book section holds better than the rest of the article which is a big trivia section that lists parodies just for the sake of listing them, ignoring WP:SALAT since they are not in reliable secondary source and, as such, that makes the list trivial and non-encyclopedic. With this said, I do not believe that WP:SPLIT applies because all the content in the article is arbitrary and unneeded and should be deleted. It does not matter if it is well-sourced with primary sources, because it is non-notable material. There is a Harry Potter Wiki for material not supported by reliable secondary sources.

Using common sense we can see that the general notability guideline establishes that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention and that means that sources address the subject directly in detail, which is not the case in this article. Also, if you don't mind me asking, which guideline states that topics not individually notable can be combined in an article to presume that a topic has notability? If you are talking about lists, they must meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists, which, as I have pointed out, I do not think this article does. They are useful when an article is already too big and lists can help alleviate article size problems by splitting less notable material related to the topic into lists, such as lists of episodes or characters, but it is always with material directly related to the article's subject and "Parodies of Harry Potter" are not directly related to the Harry Potter series.

If the list of parodies does not have an arbitrary criteria for inclusion, why are there several non-notable webcomics, youtube videos, non-notable books and other material that is only mentioned in primary sources? Is the criteria simply existence? Why all of them rely in primary sources before establishing their notability?

I would like to suggest that, when trying to reference with Google hits, try to read first the actual text of the results because search engine tests can be deceiving. I'm not closed to the idea of finding sources which could support notability for this topic, but I have tried already and, so far, I have not found anything new that changes my initial position.

To the closing administrator, please check the interpretation of the guidelines cited by the participants in this discussion, as that seems to be the main difference in arguments. I will try to refrain from making detailed responses in the future to avoid making this discussion more convoluted. Jfgslo (talk) 04:52, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow and the Seven[edit]

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

2013 film, fails WP:NFF. doomgaze (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No context. Rehevkor ✉ 17:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability as a film. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Javad Mirzaev[edit]

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

No evidence able to be found that he has played in a notable league, nor any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone is happy that the sources provided are reliable, then I'll withdraw the nomination.The-Pope (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Azerbaijani league is fully-pro, but there's no evidence that this player has actually played, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new evidence which shows notability. Giant Snowman 18:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With no fully pro appearances and no significant coverage, the subject clearly fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as there no evidence that Mirzaev played in the Azerbaijani league, and also fails WP:GNG since there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 23:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GiantSnowman. Tooga - BØRK! 23:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cmt It appears he was sent off in the 90th minute of a Azerbaijan Premier League match between FK Mughan and PFC Baku on 23 Dec 2010.[11] so it seems he has played at professional level --ClubOranje^T 12:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per updates as expanded in article, has played in Fully pro league as required by NFOOTBALL.--ClubOranje^T 12:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NFOOTY. doomgaze (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The new updates show the notability of the article. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:36, 11 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. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salford University Engineers Union[edit]

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

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

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

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

non notable student organization, refs, with a single exception, consist of links to the organization's own websites, and their facebook page WuhWuzDat 16:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organisation has become a large part of life at university for many Salford engineering students and so is very noteworthy. This page is new and the references are still being added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.97.26 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being "a large part of life at university for many Salford engineering students" actually does not make it "very noteworthy" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Meeting the criteria as outlined at WP:ORG is what makes it noteworthy, which in this case it doesn't. What separates Salford University's Engineers Union from the other thousands (or more?) of student unions and organizations globally? Show me substantial, independent coverage as on a national scale and I may reconsider. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_University_Evangelical_Union compare then? That is just the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.97.26 (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are references to the Salford SU presidents facebook, aswell as the Salford SU website, Gradcracker, and iMeche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djw42 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. What I asked for in order to verify the group meets WP:ORG was "substantial, independent coverage as on a national scale" and you point me to the SU president's Facebook page. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing in response to "refs, with a single exception, consist of links to the organization's own websites, and their facebook page" which as im sure you can see, was incorrect. Although I didn't respond to this directly, neither did I respond to you directly. So please refrain from making assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djw42 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect? Please look at the page at the time it was nominated for deletion. WuhWuzDat 07:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page was still being written at that point by the looks of it. 188.221.97.26 (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources very high up the WP:V/WP:RS chain to support general notability. Arguments along the vein of WP:ATA are unhelpful. Perhaps it's worth a sentence or two at University of Salford Students' Union? tedder (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received great recognition in the university paper and online, with one of its students winning an award. --188.221.97.26 (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is NOT inherited, even if the student was notable, that does NOT make the organization notable. (comment above by IP address appears to have originated from Salford University student housing) WuhWuzDat 07:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE QUOTE YOUR SOURCE - "comment above by IP address appears to have originated from Salford University student housing)". My IP address is not from student housing, all of Salford Unis IP addresses point to Salford.ac.uk, you will find I am on O2 broadband. As you can see there is a lot of interest in this topic, and I am sure that that shows one reason to keep the article. 188.221.97.26 (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and give it a paragraph at University of Salford#Student life. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 13 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 Keep - Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes, non-admin closure. —SW— ^soliloquize 22:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shure Beta 58A[edit]

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

~~Non-notable product, has not won any awards or received higher-than-normal accolades.~~ Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This mic is a very fine product, ~~but it was never recognized by the industry as being somehow greater than the already-high standard established by Shure.~~ David Bowie and Paul McCartney (among many others) have used it on tour (they have also used other mics), and it has been recommended (among many other mics) by books about sound mixing. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete There are a lot of reviews out on this mic, but all within domains that also sell them, failing the concept of 3rd party. Too bad, as it is a great mic based on the SM58 mic which spans the most of the history of modern music. In the end, that alone isn't enough to make it notable via wp:n. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC) See below.[reply]

- I agree with your appreciation of vendor sites. I offer the opinion that the Beta capsule is not "based on" the SM capsule. Certainly, the shape and physical feel of the Beta 58 is very, very close to the SM58, but the inner capsule is quite different. It's apparent to me that Shure wished to have the number 58 in Beta 58A help the buyer make the connection to the popular SM58, but the microphone's technology is not so much a developmental extension of the SM58's technology; it is something new. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that this article was a one-sentence stub. There was more information about this mike at Shure SM58 so I proposed that this article be merged there (or that the information be moved to this article). However, Binksternet rightfully pointed out that they are really quite different mikes and he removed the info on the Beta 58 from the SM 58 article (and split the photo). I concur with his actions and I am not against deleting this article (added: that was in its previous one-sentence stub form). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Probably one of the top 10 most popular dynamic mics in the history of microphones, I think an article could conceivably be written about it. With nearly half a million google hits on "Beta 58A", surely there is some minimal coverage in reliable sources. I have tagged it for rescue. —SW— ^yak 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point in that the microphone is mentioned in plenty of third party sources, unconnected to the manufacturer. I guess I was applying a sterner expectation of notability in that the product should have won some award, and I had not found that kind of notice. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just found that the microphone won a TEC Award in 1996. I !vote to keep even though I'm the fool who nominated this article for deletion. Sorry for the fuss! Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can withdraw the nom if you feel that strongly about it. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The description of the AfD process at WP:AFD does not include withdrawing a nom. I'll let it play out but with a struck-out argument at the start it will not get deleted. Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thats fine, I'm sure you are correct. Just for reference, it has always been considered acceptable (and often, preferable) for the nominator to withdraw the AFD if the original reason for the AFD has been mooted within the AFD itself, regardless of the guidelines in wp:afd. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:SK. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply WP:AFD states "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator," which would seem to be reason enough if the nom chose to. Of course, he is never obligated to. That is very different from a Speedy Keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, that settles it. I will try to figure out how to withdraw this thing. I doubt simple deletion will be the answer. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. This AfD is ready to be closed by an administrator. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poncho Peligroso[edit]

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

This is pretty much just a vanity page. Most of the edits are coming from the ip address associated with Poncho's school.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickdag (talk • contribs) 6 April 2011

Delete. Just because Alison Bechdel and Eli Pariser get Wikipedia articles does not mean that every Rocker does. Yes, we're all fascinating people, but Wikipedia's standard requires verifiability, not awesomeness. --FOo (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Poncho and I don't really know how to use this or edit wikipedia very well. I don't know if I'm notable. I didn't make this page but I got a lot of messages about it, and somebody from my school vandalized it extensively. The most recent edits were me removing personal information that I didn't want public, as well as blatantly false/insulting parts. I'd definitely support blocking my school's IP address from editing this at the very least, because any content of worth or note, if there is any and I'm not sure there is, would be vandalized away again rapidly. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by ponchopeligroso (talk) 6 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.91.127 (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. per A7 Completely unnotable blogger.
- Please define the parameters of "completely unnotable" in a way that can be objectively tried or tested.

Strong Keep. Peligroso is a well-cited and well-known digital word artist. Yes, some of these references are not keeping within guidelines and ought to be repaired, but let's not toss out the properly sourced citations and important biographical information contained in this article. At the very least, the decision on whether or not to delete should not be made with haste. If you see something on WP you don't like then improve it! We're all in this together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horse ebooks (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

"'Strong Keep.'" Between Metazen, HTMLGiant, NEWWAVEVOMIT and the few dozen blogs discussing, publishing and considering this work, it's notable. God, this "non-notable" trolling reminds me of everything terrible about wikipedia. --TheGrza 22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Commenting exclusively on the fact that many edits are coming from his school fails to address the type of edits being made. Many small, vandalism-like edits may be coming from those ips related to the school, but please check the larger edits that have serious intent. This will show not only that this page matters to persons outside of his immediate proximity, but that those edits coming from farther ips deal with Peligroso as an artist, not as a peer from school. --Miracleatoxford (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)miracleatoxford[reply]

The fact that many have come to vandalize this page further supports the notion that there is a significant sphere of people that consider Peligroso as noteworthy. To delete this page speedily without hearty discussion on the matter would be a blatant disregard for the democratic, pluralistic traditions so intrinsic to this website. --Miracleatoxford (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)miracleatoxford[reply]

Speedy Delete. Non-notable individual, the majority of whose references are from his own website. --carpet —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - all of the references are self-published or blogs. No coverage in secondary reliable sources, so doesn't meet the wikipedia notability guidelines. A "google news" search found 0 results, suggesting this story hasn't received any attention from news outlets.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Poncho, sorry I voted delete but you don't meet the guidelines at the moment. Good luck with your poetry, and maybe you'll be back in a few years time.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- STRONG DELETE - poncho himself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.93.39 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 11 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler cota[edit]

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

Empty article Maimai009 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete! It was blanked by the author, even before the blank it looks like it would be a speedy under A1 or A7 critera. see WP:SPEEDY for similar articles in the future no need for an AfD. Bhockey10 (talk) 15:30, 6 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 DELETED (G2) by User:Rossami. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doodle buddys[edit]

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

Nonsense Maimai009 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This is my opinion and it is amazing! Carrite (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense and lacking context. Edison (talk) 15:56, 6 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Filotti[edit]

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

Yet another article in the Filotti family cruft bunch - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ligia Filotti, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traian Filotti or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filotti family. From the unsourced text, we find out that Mircea Filotti was: a) an agronomist who once served as department head in the Agriculture Ministry; b) a filmmaker who only managed to put out one film, that no one seems to remember. Nothing that means WP:FILMMAKER or WP:PROF. Beyond this, the sources are virtually absent (google books only shows two works that are reliable and independent of the subject, both of which make passing mentions of his name). Dahn (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO as a filmmaker or academic. Is there a reliable source that he was "Department Head" of a national agriculture ministry? That does not gain the de facto "inherent notability" afforded to members of legislatures, but it might be something which gained coverage in books or newspapers in his country, which would then help to support notability. Edison (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance over Romanian-language sources, it appears that Mircea Filotti is generally mentioned only by sites related to wikipedia, mirroring wikipedia content or spamming random combinations of names. His name doesn't appear in searches of Romanian magazines in on-line versions (observatorcultural, romlit etc.). Google books has two reliable Romanian sources that make brief mention of him (the ones I mentioned above), none of them mentioning him as an agronomist (they are those ones "cited" in the article, presumably from the google snippets). To be sure, I found a third mention in Timpul newspaper, which only notes that he was the author of a screenplay which director Jean Mihail was trying to produce. A search for his name in the bcucluj archive of interwar magazines turns up no results. I for one do not recall having ever met Mircea Filotti's name in any overview of Romanian politics or cinema that I ever came across. Of course, the article creator is free to try and disprove this assessment by adding reliable sources to the article, if any exist. So far, it looks like everything but the trivia about his film is entirely based on WP:OR. Dahn (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - good analysis by Dahn; nothing in the form of independent, in-depth coverage indicates that Filotti's career was a particularly notable one.
Edison, you asked if his position as a department head at the Agriculture Ministry might have garnered press attention in his day. Dahn's search indicates that was probably not the case, and let me make two notes. In Romanian ministries, it's uncommon for someone beneath the level of minister to be notable because of activities undertaken in that position – one occasionally sees it for state secretaries (the second level), but rarely below that. Second, I've picked two current department heads from the ministry, Antonia Ivaşcu (in charge of testing and recording plant varieties) and Dan Axente (in charge of wine registration and certification). They have few overall hits; few in the press; and none, so far as I could tell, more than passing mentions. Given the much greater reach of the press today as opposed to the 1940s, I doubt Filotti was covered very much, and we certainly don't have evidence to that effect. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 7 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. postdlf (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepskin boots[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sheepskin boots

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

Delete article is a WP:POVFORK created to rewrite the history of Ugg boots, to reflect the desired outcome of a current US court case noting that this article history section significantly deviates and ommits information that is in Ugg_boots#History. Gnangarra 15:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 15:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gnangarra, nothing could be further from the truth. It is not fair to give Decker all the publicity and keep calling them Ugg boots which as we have all confirmed is Australian "slang" for "sheepskin boots". In 99% of the world Ugg is trademarked and means only one company thus "a monopoly". This is a global encyclopedia and it needs to be referenced globally. --Illume1999 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Illume1999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The facts are simple, Deckers have trademarks for UGG and every major company reffers to this style as ":Sheepskin boots".

I have never suggested replacing the very important Australian section or any of that history. The generic, global category just needed to be created and this puts all the companies on a level playing field and just features the style "globally".

I can tell that your "emotionally" involved here but Deckers won the war over UGG and they grow and grow. Other companies outside of Australia have moved on and they too, grow and grow.

The sheepskin page is fair and balanced, has wide general consensus here (please see all notes on the sheepskin page and also discussion on the "ugg boots" page) and should just remain addressing the style in general. Specific information about the unique Australian history and any trademark events are all yours. I hope you see this as just a general category page and if you look at the "Australian Work boots" page you will see that I have tried to just be very unbiased and very factual. --Illume1999 (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Illume1999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I think that the Sheepskin Boots page is a simple, elegant, and respectful solution to sorting out international nomenclature. I think this is a great start and it is in keeping with the best traditions of Wikipedia which is to find consensus through discussion.--Factchk (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Factchk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Could this be because you see it as another space to misuse Wikipedia to push the UGG Australia trademark holder's point of view? Donama (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I suggest the Ugg boots article should actually have all of its material moved over here, and then that other article should be deleted. Ugg boots are sheepskin and this article could include all material from that one, plus additional material about other types of sheepskin boots. Granted, most of this article would then be about ugg boots (and the UGG Australia brand, among others), but this solution has great potential for the resolution of a long-standing content dispute. It should be kept. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. What you are suggesting is that the article called "Ugg boots" should only be about the one brand you clearly care most about. This is a complete perversion of the aims of Wikipedia. The "Ugg boots" article should be about all brands of ugg boots, not just the "UGG Australia" brand (which is not even observed in Australia). Furthermore, if this article is not deleted it should be about all kinds of sheepskin boots, not just the ugg style. Donama (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Donama, what you're doing is called a strawman argument. I've never tried to exclude material about other manufacturers of sheepskin boots. Nor is this an effort to make the Ugg boots article about one brand. This is about an effort to prevent Wikipedia from being "Australia centric," and reflect how the terms are used in the entire world, not just Australia and New Zealand. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, P&W if that was the case I'd be happy for the article to remain, but it was created with a very specific history that claims an origin in the 1970s by one person, wheres as Ugg boots history has always conveyed that ugg boots have been manfactured since the 1930. This article wasn't an honest attempt to reflect how the terms are used in the entire world but an intentional deceptionto rewrite history ie a WP:POVFORK Gnan garra 23:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then your issue isn't with the existence of the article, but its content. Change the content in the time honored way: edit the article. You'll probably be reverted, and then you can discuss it on the article Talk page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem with this approach is that from what I am reading here, this particular kind of boot made of sheepskin is generally called "ugg boots" when spoken of in English - which means that the article about them should probably be called Ugg boots. Admittedly, I'm not from Australia so this isn't a topic with which I have personal experience. But the fact that "Ugg boots" outnumbers "sheepskin boots" 10:1 in a googlefight seems to indicate (in a non-definitive, rule-of-thumb sort of way) that it's a term with wide acceptance. Eco-Mono (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googlefights are rough and unreliable for making determinations like this. Notoriety is not the same as notability; and did you do the Googlefight in any language other than English? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a born and raised Australian manufacturer of sheepskin boots and since 2005 I have only referred to this style as "sheepskin boots". I have traveled all over the world and have sold my boots on every continent. I have attended some of the industry's biggest trade shows in the USA and Europe and I have sold my products at wholesale and retail in most of the world and in cities like New York, London, Milan and Munich and it is very clear to me that "sheepskin boots" is how the classic, Australian sheepskin boot is referred to generically outside of Australia. Well done, Beauty, Bonza and its about Bloody time!--Barclaygla09 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Barclaygla09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well then you are in a very small minority in Australia then. And given that your contribution here was your second ever edit to Wikipedia I can't help but be suspicious about your vote. You'd better hope a WP:SOCK puppet check isn't done on your account or you could be blocked. Donama (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donama, whatever happened to WP:AGF and "don't bite the newbies"? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added Sheepskin Boots to the nomination because it is a duplicate of the uncapitalized title. Goodvac (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect (or completely rewrite). At the moment it is a clear content fork of Ugg boots, seemingly circumventing existing discussion and consensus on that page by directly copying much of the content (without sourcing) from ugg boots. As mentioned on the ugg boots talk page, there may be call to have an article about sheepskin boots in general, one type of which is the ugg boot, but there is no need to duplicate existing content in order to circumvent debate. This would be an A10 candidate, but it is (and was) a plausible redirect, and would be better treated as one. - Bilby (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've redirected Sheepskin Boots to Sheepskin boots, as the content of the two articles was identical. - Bilby (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Rewrite as per everything Bilby has said. The content of the article is wrong and a POV fork as mentioned, and thus I would support deleting it outright to avoid such a gross perversion of the aims of Wikipedia. In the end though, an article about generic sheepskin boots should be allowed to exist so I would be happy also to see it properly rewritten and remain. Donama (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Conditional Keep given the changed content of the article, on the condition that it does not revert to being a commercially-biased fork of ugg boots. Donama (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coment - This is simply an extension of the edit warring over commercial POV bias in ugg boots. Without that I don't believe this article would ever have been started. Donama (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Ugg boots article is about a particular kind of "unisex sheepskin boots", and the sheepskin boots article has zero content beyond a discussion of "ugg boots". For this article to survive, there must both be other types of sheepskin boot which deserve Wikipedia coverage, and a reason for the category called "sheepskin boots" to be notable in and of itself, rather than just having different articles for different kinds of sheepskin boots. Eco-Mono (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the Chinese consumers consider “Sheepskin boots” as the correct universal term, they like these fashionable and comfortable products, and the most popular brand is UGG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda1997 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Linda1997 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I see this as a general information page about sheepskin boots and it is the correct term to use when referencing this type of boot. UGG Australia has the trademark for the term ugg, therefore there should be an article for the generic sheepskin boot. (hapamama) [youngteacher] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngteacher (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Youngteacher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge into redirect to Ugg boots since it merely duplicates material. Not necessarily a POV fork, but a fork nonetheless - the articles clearly cover the same ground, since the ugg article is not just about the trademarked brand. St Anselm (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per "A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic" without prejudice to later re-creation either as a redirect or as a comprehensive article on the subject by a neutral editor. The article as it stands is part of a campaign by certain editors to convert an article about a generic topic into advertising material for a commercial brand. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content here does not seem to have been copied from the competing article. And the idea that sheepskin boots are especially Australian is mistaken. For example, here's a source discussing their usage by the Inuit — Sinews of survival — while this source indicates that the RAF wore sheepskin boots in WW1 — British Air Forces 1914-18. The issue seems similar to that of the Snuggie which we have now at Sleeved blanket as there are numerous trade-names for this. MOS:TM states , "Don't expect readers to know, based on trademarks or brand names, what item is being discussed." and so we should prefer a generic title in plain English, such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except that here we have a brand name derived from a generic name, rather than vice versa. St Anselm (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, I'm surprised by the comment that it isn't copied from the "competing" article - everything from "design" down is identical, word-for-word, to what is in ugg boots, even with the original reference tags (but no references), and the rest is different wording saying exactly the same things, bar for a bit of OR and synthesis about sheep. - Bilby (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote we keep the Ilume article for Sheepskin boots as it is the generic term for the boots. Arguments can be made on whether a boot can be branded an "Ugg" but they can all be called sheepskin boots - they either are made of sheepskin or they are not. Fctchk is right this is an an elegant solution - after all no one can own a descriptive term they all fall under the name sheepskin - this is fair to all. Middlemarch2256 (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what the elegant solution is. It seems all that has been done is that content has been copied from one article to another, making an unacceptable content fork, exactly as is described in Wikipedia:Content fork#Unacceptable types of forking. The original article still stands, the new one simply duplicates the content, and there is still no article on sheepskin boots as a historical term outside of a particular style. - Bilby (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that this article is taking shape however, it is very difficult to get some consensus here as the article was so edited over night. I had only put out a first draft and had appealed for help in writing this article however, the references to "Australian sheepskin boots" were nearly all replaced with "ugg boots" and now we have an article that doesn't mention them at all.

The big question still remains, if 20 million people in Australian know the "Australian sheepskin boot style" as an "ugg boot", what shall the rest of the World's 6.908 billion people call them? And before another Australian editor says "ugg boots", that term is trademarked and cannot be used to describe the style "legally" outside of Australia. Its not an oppinion, this is an absolute fact.

If this community doesn't like to call the style "sheepskin boots" or "Australian sheepskin boots", even though this is the term used today by international and Australian manufacturers, Industry buyers and consumers alike, what shall the "generic" term be for this style that is currently the biggest selling style of boots in the world?--Illume1999 (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The generic term for this style of boots is "ugg boots", and its variant spellings "ugh boots" and "ug boots". The notion that the term is trademarked anywhere other than the United States is at best a novel synthesis of original research and at worst an outright fabrication. I had previously assumed good faith on the part of the spokespeople for the Deckers company and believed that the term was also trademarked in the Netherlands, but it seems more likely that the existence of the generic term was dismissed as irrelevant to a case, not of trademark infringement, but of outright counterfeiting. The 5% of the world's population who live in the United States can not demand that the 94.5% who live in neither the United States nor Australia (of whom I am one) refer to ugg boots by clumsy euphemisms such as "Australian sheepskin boots". Lastly, please do not make legal threats. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davosaurus, The trademark for "UGG" in the Netherlands is listed on Deckers trademarks (link on "ugg boots" page see Benelux -http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/1834017/UGGglobaltms-pdf-march-31-2010-3-03-pm-88k?da=y). If you have an other name for this style, please suggest it. The term "Australian sheepskin boots" or "classic sheepskin boots" is used by every manufacturer outside of Australia and this is the "Generic" name used in most of the world--Illume1999 (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Sheepskin boots were around long before they became an Ugg fashion statement. Notable.—RJH (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article was mostly unsourced, I rewrote it from a selection of sources to this version. The idea of this version was to provide some historical and geographical perspective by providing examples such as Alaska, England and Tibet. Another editor, has now reverted this, replacing it with a version which focuses exclusively upon the Ugg boot dispute. This editor (Factchk) seems to be a single-purpose account. Editors should please note the flip-flopping state of the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please read Ugg Boots history they have been manfactured as ugg boots since the 1930's the history as written in Sheepskin boots is purposefully being written to conform with the history according to Deckers as being presented in a US court case. I add the history of Ugg boots and renamed the section, but the purpose of this AFD is to have that history washing deleted. Gnan garra 23:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - per Bilby and Gnangarra above Satu Suro 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep subject to the status of the original article, Ugg boots. I am concerned that to keep this article is to allow a nomination to delete Ugg boots, and so I vote Keep on the sole condition that the original article is retained. I believe Sheepskin boots is a valid WP:SPINOFF from it, rather than a FORK. As usual, it is pointless to argue the intentions of the article creator, mostly because there is never any firm evidence of it, but also because the article subject is either valid or invalid whatever the reasons for creating it (and is valid in this case).

As usual, the oxymoronic POVFORK is being misused, but more than it is usually, the oxymoronic incompatibility is highly visible. It is claimed that there is a great deal of material in common with both articles, and yet the material in the new article is being branded as POV. How can this be unless the material in the original article was POV? I ask that you please modify your votes to regular WP:FORK, instead of the redundant and erroneous POVFORK. Anarchangel (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- comment The nomination was based on this version which at the time was valid WP:CSD#A10 candidate but because of the nature of the subject I knew that such a deletion would be disputed hence the AFD, while your assessment is based on the current article that doesnt warrant an assessment of the nomination as a miss use of WP:POVFORK which clearly the article was at the time of the nomination. Gnan garra 03:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- comment Thank you Anarchangel for stating the obvious, it is very clear now that it is the Australian editors that have their own POV that just cannot accept that this is a global encyclopedia and should not be used to push their own agenda. The original article that I submitted was just a beginning and I welcomed other editors to help in the writing of this article. this version The editing that has gone on over the last few days by some is very telling that they cannot and should not participate here. In one edit, Gnangarra notes "remove non notable brands, add other Ugg manufacturers". It is Gnangarra's "opinion" that EMU who are the 2nd largest manufacturer of this style and sold in over 60 countries is not notable! Several other international brands were removed including Celtic, an originator in the UK who sold their UK "UGG" trademark to Deckers and "Overland" who are an American company manufacturing this exact style of sheepskin since the early 1970s. Uggs N Ruggs was added however, this Australian company cannot sell "legally" outside of Australia (due to their name) and really does not belong in this "Global" page on 'sheepskin boots". I have never suggested that the history of "Ugg boots" in Australia be changed or amended, only that the global, generic name "sheepskin boots" get its own page. Can we please bring in some senor editors that can lock down this article and help tweak the content in a factual and unbiased manner? --Illume1999 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment WP:NOTABILITY is as defined by the Wikipedia community. As for your claim Uggs-N-Rugs cannot sell outside of Australia (due to their name), Illume1999 obviously you have access to information that isnt in the public arena please provide that proof. You say Ugg boots are sheepskin boots but when you wrote the article you ignored the history of Sheepskin boots in Australia prior to 1970 and only wrote what was has been the company line of Deckers. see this version or there this version on the Ugg boot talk page and yet another version was posted at the alternative capitilisation, those action are a very clear example of POV peddling. Gnan garra 13:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gnangarra, I have changed that to "Legally" sell... I was using research on counterfeiting etc as as Deckers have trademarks all over the world. As the Australians are very aware of this,I was just relaying that due to Deckers trademarks, Australian companies are calling them "Sheepskin boots" or "Australian sheepskin boots". This has been well established. Additionally, I did not ignore any history and asked for help on my "Draft". If editors could "tweak" the article with factual points to help this along, we would have this completed by now. --Illume1999 (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment so now your accusing a company of operating illegally, seriously you should be removing/appologising for such claims or at the very least be providing proof those are serious allegations your making in a very public forumn. I'd suggest you put your shovel away and stop digging the whole is getting very deep and murky Gnan garra 14:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is a quote from the owner of Uggs-N-Rugs "The McDougalls claim to have lost 90 percent of their international business since 2004. Their daughter gave up entirely after Deckers shut down her eBay business. “Almost anyone who sells anything with the word ug, ugg or ugh is infringing on their trademark,” Bronwyn says. “There’s no argument.”" http://magazine.wsj.com/features/behind-the-brand/the-golden-fleece/3/ --Illume1999 (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very nice quote but that doesnt support you claim Uggs-N-Rugs cannot sell outside of Australia (due to their name) or your updated claim cannot sell "legally" outside of Australia (due to their name) I again ask you provide something that supports your assertions or withdraw them. Gnan garra 15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gnanrarra, I do not wish to "muddy" this, I was just using a quote from that company which I felt was quite clear. I hereby retract my comment on Uggs-n-Ruggs in the interest of moving onto the topic at hand. --Illume1999 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — consensus so far appears to be Keep. At worst, there appears to be no consensus either way, which defaults back to Keep. Let's all try to remain calm, be courteous and collegial with each other, and always WP:AGF. Illume is inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia; please don't bite the newbie. Instead, gently help him/her learn and find the way.

"... it is very clear now that it is the Australian editors that have their own POV that just cannot accept that this is a global encyclopedia and should not be used to push their own agenda." Welcome to Wikipedia Illume. I agree that Wikipedia should be a global encyclopedia and represent not just Australians or even all English speaking people, but all people. Usage of the term "ugg boots" in China, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States differs from its usage in Australia and New Zealand. In virtually every nation in the world except Australia and New Zealand, it's a registered trademark of Deckers and its use for any other commercial purpose is illegal. But the Australian and New Zealand editors have very strong feelings about this. They need to be addressed gently and courteously. And so do you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Thank you Phoenix and Winslow. Please see the discussion page as I feel that there is a very good solution there for all. When I first looked at this section many months ago, I was thoroughly confused! I feel that my suggestion combined with the current page is the solution that will make this clearer not to mention "Fair and balanced" for all, and worthy of an encyclopedia, the way this should be.--Illume1999 (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clicking the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, I see there are 839 results for "sheepskin boots". Looking over the results on the first page of results, they seem to be popular enough item for the news to mention them. Them coming from Australia to the America market, fashion news, plus mentioning how it is popular enough for one company to do well, etc, proves its notability. Dream Focus 16:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ugg boots as a WP:CFORK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Ugg boots are a fashion staple, at least for the past few years. They are notable and have been talked about many times on national television, in fashion industry and magazines that focus on fashion. Sheepskin boots article should likely have an entire section on Ugg boots popularizing Sheepskin boots but not all Sheepskin boots are Uggs, clearly. Jnast1 (talk) 01:03, 10 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. WP:CSD#A7, on the basis of the Google translation. JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

荃豐中心[edit]

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

Non english content Maimai009 14:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although that in and of itself is not a valid rationale for deletion (see WP:ATD), the article in its present state does qualify for speedy deletion as A1 and has been tagged accordingly. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether or not "No English Content" is recognized as a "valid rationale" for deletion or not, it is a commonsensical one and this should be deleted under WP:IAR. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned this in my previous comment: According to Google Translate this article says "Tsuen Wan Centre, on January 12, 1987 the official opening of". That's it. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:01, 6 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. Even disregarding throwaway !votes, strong consensus to keep. If someone strongly disagrees, feel free to revert the close. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 23:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Periphery (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSIC; a following on the internet produces a lot of ghits, which tends to obscure how thin the coverage really is. For our purposes a relatively successful myspace band. Discussed last year without consensus. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find reputable references to support notability. TangSing (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ you suck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.239.5 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are featured in the current issue of Guitar World: see [12] That's notable enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.144.191 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. See WP:MUSIC g1 ("Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable").- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, if there were another magazine like Guitar World that had featured them, would that be enough, or are you suggesting that the notability of the magazine is questionable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.75.160 (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per this. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 01:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Criteria #2 (Self-titled album charted, nearly hitting 2 on Billboard's "Heatseakers") and #7 (One of the more prominently and popular leaders of Djent) of WP:BAND. In addition, in only two weeks (read: 13 days) they will meet criteria #5 by having release 2 albums on a notable label. Based #2 and #5 alone, I feel, merits inclusion. Otherwise, looking at #5 we delete and then in almost no time, they become notable.GreenRunner0 01:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute that g7 applies. Of what notable style are they a prominent representative? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Djent, as previously stated.Green Runner 0 19:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have not disputed that they meet criteria #2 (which alone should qualify for notability) and will meet #5 on April 19, 2011, and as mentioned elsewhere, they performed a song on a compilation (the "Homefront" soundtrack), which qualifies them for #10. They indisputably meet two of the criteria for notability and will meet a third in six days.
Keep Over 50,000 Facebook fans. Toured extensively in the US. Have just finished touring in the UK. Were supporting the Dillinger Escape Plan in Australia. Jeff Loomis who is very well notable solo'd on the song "Racecar" on the self-titled album. Toontrack, a large company cited Misha Mansoor (guitarist) as their artist for the month in October 2010. Misha is also cited as an artist on "Bareknuckle Pickups" website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.48.54 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One lifeline might be - although it looks tenuous - that the band's record company Roadrunner used Universal Music Group for distribution (uncited) from 2001 to an indeterminate date, and that it released a Periphery record in 2010 while it had been apparently taken over by Warner Bros, this in 2007, although the out-of-date 2007 cite for this is now unsupported as the Warner Bros archive only goes back to 2008. This is grasping at straws I know. Any significance of the charts mentioned above is another matter. If the article survives, it needs a good flush-out - weasles, inlines to You Tube, and fanpoop. Acabashi (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep as per section 6 in addition to 2, 7 (Djent), and 5 (as soon as their EP is released) on WP:MUSIC; former drummer Travis Orbin is currently playing with the band Sky Eats Airplane; lead guitarist Misha Mansoor has produced albums for bands such as Animals As Leaders and Circles, as well as Periphery and his other project Haunted Shores. (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2011 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep due to the fact that they fall into the subgenre Djent (#7 WP:BAND) as one of the main influences. This is surely enough justification alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salamander121 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by FearOfTheDuck (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per criteria #10 - They covered Metallica's One for Homefront. Sam 1123^{Talk to me!} 16:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is going to be another interesting AfD :/ - Alison ^❤ 10:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This must suffice: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/mar/03/djent-metal-geeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.70.175.217 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This band had a whole double page spread, with a 4 page article that followed in Guitar Center Magazine, America's premier source for rock and metal guitar news. This band is a fantastic up and coming experience, having just completed a full headlining North American tour. --Dkannen (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but include sources that cite their genre, as many people as wrongly listing them as "progressive metal" when they are clearly more a metalcore/mathcore/djent band --Dexter_prog (talk • contribs • count) @ 14:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep'" This would be a shame for wiki to remove this Bands page , imagine if some of the great bands were brushed aside early in there careers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.74.196 (talk) 15:27, 13 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. Sandstein 05:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spectrobes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think this list article falls squarely under the WP:VGSCOPE criteria for inappropriate content ("lists of gameplay items...") Marasmusine (talk) 13:25, 6 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) Marasmusine (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While List of Pokemon essentially does the same thing, it actually has content to link to, and acts as a directory of sort over the lists. None of these seem to be notable in any way, and this list would prove no use to anybody who doesn't know anything about the series. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per WP:GAMEGUIDE, which advises Wikipedia to avoid miscellaneous lists of items in video games. Also this article fails WP:N because it contains no reliable, third-party sources. Finally, even if we were to ignore the failures of WP:NOT and WP:N, it should still be removed because it's actually totally useless as an article; there is no context for any of these items, and therefore no way for anyone who is already unfamiliar with the game to get any information out of it. For example, I have no idea what "Ziba" and "Genshi" mean in this context and no way of finding out from the article. Reyk _YO! 01:58, 9 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. postdlf (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Parliament: UPLB Debate Society[edit]

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

Not notable. No references are cited, and I doubt that, even if references were added, there's little chance that these are not produced by the organization itself. Moray An Par (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of why this organisation is notable. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With cites, it could be summarized in about three sentences on the university page. tedder (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already, not notable outside the university. Could merge to the university or to a list of its clubs and societies, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:38, 11 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 a1, insufficient context. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M. A. Eden Garden[edit]

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

Sandbox/test page Maimai009 13:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per CSD A1. There is no context telling me what it is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:03, 6 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Elana Grace Von-Bürhen[edit]

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

Not notable person. Maimai009 13:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination--Melaen (talk) 13:02, 6 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. Sandstein 05:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panic Nation[edit]

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

Finishing nomination for IP editor as per request on the AfD talkpage. The IP originally proposed the article's deletion, then realised it had already been proposed in the past, so wasn't eligible. Prod rationale was "fails WP:NBOOK: no secondary sources, no awards; improvements to article since August 2008 limited to the correction of misspellings." I have no opinion on the matter yet, just fixing the nomination Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely meets the notability criteria, I have added two references. I have corrected spellings and cleaned it up a little. The article could do with expansion. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are 4 sources, but many non-notable books have reviews and the like. I carefully looked at the actual notice paid to this book in these sources.

3 of the 4 references were routine coverage of an upcoming new book ("In a new book on X..."). They don't evidence any kind of significant (WP:N) or enduring (WP:NOT) notice, this is simply the usual kind of routine coverage given to almost every new book on popular topics(WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE touches on this). The dates make this very likely, all are dated 2005; the book itself was published in 2006.
The 4th is the reference in "Biopolitics and the obesity epidemic". This does show attention, the book has been "noticed" 4 years after publication and used as a source in another book. However the coverage is brief mentions on 3 pages (p. 40 - 42) used as a "final example" on the field of biopolitics. The book itself is not what is getting the attention, rather it gains brief mentions for mentioning some points in the biopolitics debate.

For me, this doesn't show "significant attention" by the wider world. Notability would require significant secondary coverage in multiple sources not just related to its launch and prompted by routine publicity of new books. This book was mostly a "here today buried by other new releases next month" book, the kind that we don't cover. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per FT2. Coverage does not seem to be substantial enough to show notability.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 05:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. This reference recently added by Jezhotwells is a full review of the book itself in the New Statesman. Here is another in the Sunday Times. In addition, the authors get quoted at length in articles about the subject, for example [13]. --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really convinced by these. All 3 are from the same brief period in 2005 as the other "new release" coverage already cited. I can't get "New Statesman" to load, but the Sunday Times is a column "Food Detective" (indiscriminate coverage?) reviewing the new food book release, and the BBC is on the "Junk Food in Schools" debate where Professor Marks' view is quoted and it is limited to the briefest of throwaway mentions ("Vincent Marks, Professor of Clinical Biochemistry and co-editor of a new book titled Panic Nation, claims (whatever)" - there is no further mention or discussion of the book). I can't find significant mentions post-publication (eg 2007 onwards) in Google generally or in Google Scholar. Is there any evidence this book has gained significant independent notice not merely prompted by routine release of a new book? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be introducing a brand-new criterion of your own. WP:NB, the notability standard for books, does not require that the book continue to be talked about for years after its publication. It just requires "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The "New Statesman" article loads for me, but it takes a minute. It's a 600 word review, by one of their regular writers, entirely about this book. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm looking at What Wikipedia is not as well as notability. Many items get brief but widespread coverage - suicides, murders, political matters, new books, etc. Almost every book gets some coverage when it is released. This kind of coverage doesn't make them notable. We are lacking evidence that the book got significant coverage that was not merely related to new book publication, a routine event. The coverage cited almost all appears to date from and be prompted by its publication as commented above: BBC (mentioned in passing only, 3 Oct 2005), Toronto Star (inaccessible, 8 Oct 2005), Food detective (also indiscriminate?, 18 June 2005), New Statesman (~~inaccessible~~ standard "new book" review, routine coverage, 18 July 2005). Post-immediate publication it doesn't seem to have had significant attention otherwise. Being "the subject of multiple non-trivial works" does not mean mere mentions. What would help is significant / non-trivial coverage that shows the book got more than transient publication-related attention. I had a look in case it existed but couldn't find any. Maybe others can? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I got the New Statesman article to load. It's standard "new book" coverage. Like many topics, I am concerned that it falls foul of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Is there any evidence that it gained notice beyond being normally reviewed on publication? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think this new requirement should be added to the notability standard for books - that it's not enough for the book to get multiple reviews when it first comes out, people must still be talking and writing about it years later - the place to propose it is Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). Not here in the AfD discussion about one book. Because we should be discussing based on existing standards, which I have quoted above. And under existing standards, this is a notable book.
Personally I doubt if your proposed new standard will achieve consensus, because it is unrealistic. The normal time for books to be reviewed is when they first come out. A notable book will get multiple, substantial reviews in major reliable sources. A non-notable book will receive little or no notice, or notice only in a few very local or very specialized sources - certainly not in the Sunday Times! After those first few months, even a New York Times top bestseller is likely to get little or no ongoing or additional coverage. That's just the way it works.
IMO it is not true that "Almost every book gets some coverage when it is released." The truth is that every NOTABLE book gets coverage in major sources when it is released. Non-notable books (and we see a lot of them here at AfD) do not get reviewed, certainly not by major national papers, and certainly not as a stand-alone full review (as opposed to being one of a half-dozen books in a column about cookbooks or teen fiction or whatever the genre is). That's the distinction. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000[edit]

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

This article is a very detailed list of more than couple dozen fictional items of military equipment used by a fictional faction in a fictional universe (IMHO this article is a simple Wikipedia:Fancruft case). However Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia and not a detailed games sourcebook (WP:NOTMANUAL). The subject's inherent notability is frankly extremely doubtful (IMHO it fails Wikipedia:Notability - please read the General notability guidelines carefully). IMHO the sources and references reflect this; they don't come from independent third parties but rather from sourcebooks themselves or from sites of the respective computer games. Please read the article carefully and then truly ask yourselves: is this a proper article for Wikipedia? Afterwards feel free to vote according to your conscience. I also wish to point out the similar deletion proposals in Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 and Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All We may not like it but the consensus of the Wikipedia community has been that WP is a place for lists of trivia, and Warhammer is less trivial than most others.Borock (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Warhammer 40K is a very popular tabletop game among gamers. This entry written well and with some work could be a good article. (Changed recommendation I was unaware of another article with a similar title already existing). No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This article is well done and should be merged into the main article. Golgofrinchian (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a RPG game guide. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if these are deleted, then Equipment and vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 should also be deleted. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there might be more trivial lists that violate policy but a bad list is a bad list. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. And the vehicles do not meet the general notability guideline that calls for third-party sources. Precedent for deleting these kinds of lists can be seen at Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 and Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this GAMEGUIDE OF which deletors speak?

"Video game guides. An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE."

And if you want precedent, boy, there is plenty of that.

Deleted without discussion:

The Battle for Macragge

Ogryn

Holy_Terra_(world)

Redirected without discussion:

Primarch 17:58, 13 August 2008 by Pagrashtak (talk · contribs)

Eldar Harlequins 20:05, 10 September 2010 by Thumperward (talk · contribs) (also mass deletion of content from pages such as this, per a 'discussion' between himself and someone who objected to his changes)

Slaanesh 15:32, 22 July 2008 Jaysweet (talk · contribs)

Laughing God 05:06, 26 July 2008 Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) twice

Articles for Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard Template Construct

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters mass deletion including Black Legion (Warhammer 40,000), Iron Warriors, Night Lords, Thousand Sons

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons, equipment, and vehicles of the Necrons

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planets of Warhammer 40,000

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officio Assassinorum (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titan (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land Raider (Warhammer 40,000) (mass delete with Powerfist, Dreadnought (Warhammer 40,000), Terminator (Warhammer 40,000))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) (mass delete with White Scars, Space Wolves, Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Salamanders (Warhammer 40,000))

Commons files

Commons:Deletion_requests/Warhammer_40,000_derivate_work_and_fan_art Mass deletion: File:40KChainsword 3DModel.jpg, File:Biscopea.png, File:Boltaci.png, File:Bolterlourd.png, File:Bolthell.png, File:Boltinf.png, File:Boltkken.png, File:Boltsil.png, File:Boltstd.png, File:Canon Plasma.png, File:Canon dassaut.png, File:Cataciani.jpg, File:Coeur Auxiliaire.png, File:Fulgurant.png, File:Fusil sniper.png, File:Fusilpompe.png, File:Gaunt di Tanith.jpg, File:Guerrier du Chaos Khorne.JPG, File:Lance Flamme.png, File:Lanceplasma.png, File:Munitions plasma.png, File:Ossmodula.png, File:Paquetage(W40K).png, File:Pistolet plasma.png, File:Pistoletbolter.png, File:Silver guard standar.jpg, File:Soldato di Tanith.jpg, File:Spettri di Gaunt.jpg, File:Tau and Imperial Guard.jpg, File:W40k.JPG, File:Warhammer 40k Battle 14.jpg, File:Warhammer 40k Battle 4.jpg, File:Worldeaterslogo.gif, File:YoungEisenhorn.jpg, File:Épée tronçonneuse.jpg, File:Épée énergétique copie.jpg, File:W40000 Symbol.png, File:Khorne11.JPG, File:Khorne112.JPG

I don't see that list as a precedent to delete, though. I see it as one of the things that is wrong with Wikipedia. I see it as Khanaris does, below, in his last two sentences (you can have his diplomacy in the rest of the paragraph too, but I don't know if he still means it; he has not edited since April 2010):

"Essentially, what is happening here is that one or two editors have decided to undertake a comprehensive sweep of the dozens of pages dedicated to the fictional elements of Warhammer 40k. I am seeing the same two or three names pop up in every one of these AfD. This is different than someone with a grudge going in and deleting pages dedicated to a hobby or setting they don't like, which is what has been implied. However, I think it is better to do all of this at the same time. Wikipedia would be better off if a standard policy regarding fictional notability was adopted, since then there wouldn't be such a warren of lost links and disorganized pages. Deleting them piece-meal like this is not really a good answer. The policy should be set first, and then applied evenly across the entire range of content. Furthermore, the same policies that apply here should be extended to Warhammer Fantasy as well. They should also extend to every other fictional game setting. Dungeons and Dragons has this problem with most of its pages. Warmachine has it with all of its pages. Third Party sources do not exist to provide notability because the companies involved would consider such sources to be in violation of their IP. Unless the content has existed for long enough to draw academic interest, it can not generate third party sources. This does not accurately cover how noteworthy the information might be, since the strict interpretation of IP rules is an artificial constraint on coverage. I think the notability requirements in this case need to account for the scope of the non-third-party material. There is a big difference in notability between someone that has been mentioned once in a single book and something that has become an icon within a specific community due to use by numerous authors in numerous publications under the same umbrella IP constraints. As it is now, there are hundreds of settings where this problem exists. Books, games, and movies. Almost every comic book younger than 30 years. All but a handful of Star Wars and Star Trek pages. Every medium where fiction can be presented. From the fact these thousands of pages exist here, many of them well-researched and well-written, it can be gathered that this is something people are interested in preserving in an encyclopedic format. You can push all of these topics off to for-profit sites like Wikia, but I am not sure that is really honoring what Wikipedia is supposed to be." - User talk:Khanaris, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)

I am pretty sure this is the tip of the iceberg. Fans contributed everything about Warhammer and Warhammer 40K, and everything has been deleted. 'Fans' has been made a dirty word. And yet the same people who delete these things also happily improve the 45(!) articles from 1959 Scotch Cup (the first World Curling Championship) etc etc all the way up to 2011 Ford World Men's Curling Championship and do not appear to experience cognitive dissonance while doing so. I have never and will never begrudge Curling enthusiasts their article, but there is a limit to what can be considered a good faith mistake of perspective, and at least one of them has crossed that line. There is a double standard in operation at Wikipedia; editors who are the losing end know it, and editors who are on the winning side will be coming for the articles you cherish next, as sports enthusiasts are already starting to realize. Anarchangel (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I would say transwiki to annex but whenever I say that, people ignore me, so I don't do it anymore. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~strong~~ keep this is a nomination that has lost perspective in response to the other indescriminate related articles in the area. Even though it may take original research the equipment and vehicles have had a profound impact on the weaponary, costume and vehicles in sci-fi films and series. The article is sourced from white dwarf magazine at a time when it was a proper magazine covering many games that were not owned by Games Workshop. Vehicles was a separate Warhammer game book [14]. There are still spin off products ie computer games[15] and DVD [16]. The article might need polishing or even renaming as (vehicles and weaponary of Warhammer 40k) but as someone who isn't a fan of RPG the equipment and vehicles is encyclopedic and warrants a separate article. Tetron76 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We are all free to have our own opinions, so it goes: This article is simply not meant for Wikipedia at all. It is a detailed presentation of several dozen fictional vehicles. All its sources come directly or indirectly from Games Workshop: they are either 40K armybooks, White Dwarf (magazine) or video games based on the setting. None of those are independent third-party sources (as in Wikipedia:Third-party sources). IMHO this article is simply way too specialized: it's clearly written by fans and meant largely for fans (as in Wikipedia:Fancruft). If Wikipedia has such an article about the vehicles of the Imperium, why shouldn't it have similar specialized articles for the vehicles of the Tau (Warhammer 40,000), Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), Dark Eldar, Ork (Warhammer 40,000) etc? I mean come on, such an article is good and fine for Fan wikis like Lexicanum or the Warhammer 40,000 Wiki but IMHO it isn't meant for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. Here we have article about the fantasy/science-fiction setting (Warhammer 40,000) and for its major fictional factions (listed above). IMHO we shouldn't have articles about fictional vehicles belonging to a fictional faction in a fictional universe. Flamarande (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am reducing my vote from strong to keep because of the name of the article issue. But this is a list and if you compare it to other wikilists it is not unreasonable. The Mirror does mention vehicles in passing [17], the game went #2 in the years sales[18], with several reviews such as [19], books have made top 20 [20]. Brian Blessed has his voice for WH40k noted in an article about him [21][22]. There is a general two page article on warhammer [23]. This is just a snap shot of mainstream newspaper articles mentioning Warhammer 40k, there are computer game review sites that are used for other articles. My point is that although, the game vehicles don't get explicit mentions in the media is that Warhammer 40k is very significant and the weapons and vehicles are significant for their impact on other areas more so than characters or other articles and a list seems appropriate as they don't have individual notability.Tetron76 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meant notability to pass GNG, While I might be more leaning towards Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/A.4#Proposal_A.4:_Lists_may_be_exempted_from_the_GNG if you read carefully there is no policy that explicitly excludes this list. White Dwarf was stocked by WHSmiths briefly around this time because I had a friend who took it which would make it mainstream.Tetron76 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of entirely unsourced trivia on Warhammer 40,000 was migrated off the project (along with the editors who enthusiastically added to it) at the end of 2007: discussion took place on the Warhammer 40,000 WikiProject's talk page, cultinating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 6#Falcorian's First Five-Year Plan. The simple fact is that almost none of the huge amount of material added to Wikipedia concerning Warhammer 40,000 has any references whatsoever other than those derived from the game books and surrounding source material in which the subjects feature. That sort of thing is fine for a specialist wiki like Lexicanium, but it has no place here as our inclusion criterion is not verifiability but notability in the sense of recognition and analysis by independent secondary sources. This is no exception. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just as soon you felt better with your little pipedream, but I would give the others here a chance to make up their mind with all the facts. Every single fantasy and science fiction game, book, comic, movie, television program or anime show is more likely to be deleted than its counterparts in other areas. I could have rustled up three good sources for this in five minutes and been on my way, if it were not the penultimate victim of a cultural icon that is only one victim of a grand genrecide. Anarchangel (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the above is a 'delete' vote. Flamarande (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't vote here. It is what it is. The closing admin should be able to figure the sentiment out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gameguide material, written in an in-universe style, no third party coverage = non-notable topic. Sandstein 05:49, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Health Services[edit]

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

Healthcare company seems to fail WP:N. A search of Google News Archives turned up no hits for United Health Services, just a lot of hits for the unrelated UnitedHealth Group. Of the references provided in the article currently, two are primary and one seems to be a press release. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simply using the link provided in the AFD itself, I am seeing 2320 hits for the exact name "United Health Services". Many are incidental, but not all are. (Scholar and other links also provide hundreds of mentions.) I haven't exhausted the list to see what qualifies as wp:rs, but the shear volume of mentions in the news seems to completely negate the claim of the nominator, so based on the nomination itself being factually incorrect in asserting there is no news, I would have to say keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Media seems to use the abbreviation of UHS more often. Try Googling "UHS"+Binghamton or +"New York", instead of the exact name "United Health Services". 149.125.249.93 (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bit of google searching indicates that this is a very significant company in the health insurance industry. Article needs much better sourcing to reflect this fact. Perchloric (talk) 02:37, 10 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 English Montreal School Board. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nesbit elementary school[edit]

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

Judging by the school's web site ~~( http://www.nesbites.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/ )~~, it looks like a primary school - and those are generally considered non-notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) (Nope, that was the wrong school site -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment This article is a duplicate and its name is slightly different than Nesbitt elementary school which has been CSD'd a few times already for several reasons. The editor appears to be advocating against the school's closure as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've deleted the duplicate and moved this one over it (The CSD on it would have to be declined anyway, as the copyvio had been removed). That one is the correct spelling, but this one is already at AfD, and the two were effectively identical - so this seems like the simplest approach. I've left the redirect so the AfD entry still works, but that can be cleaned up if the decision is to delete it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This can be referred to in the article Montreal School Board. I understand the premise-- Nesbitt Elementary, proposed for closure after 100 years existence, and the community is working to save it. We've got a new editor, who may not be aware of the means of linking news articles and websites, but if that person is reading this, it's easy-- copy the URL address and put it into your article. Mandsford 13:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I got the link to the school wrong in the nomination - it appears to be http://www.emsb.qc.ca/nesbitt/ -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proper spelling is actually Nesbitt with double T. the school board is the English montreal school board not the montreal school board which is for french schools. and The fact there is contention currently around the school continued existence, it is in my opinion relevant. But this is a Communal effort and will respect final decision on this. Just this though should be accepted please make sure it is for Nesbitt elementary school with two T's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savenesbitt (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an article on the school district or locality, as is the present practice for most elementary schools. Edison (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, note that the correct redirect target is English Montreal School Board, not Montreal School Board, the latter points to the French school board, not the English one. Hairhorn (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made Montreal School Board a dab page, since there is no reason to think either school board should be the main target. Hairhorn (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to English Montreal School Board for reasons already stated. Stealthysis (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to English Montreal School Board. I found content about the school with a Google search, but I've concluded that whatever notability it has is as part of the EMSB system. --Orlady (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Montreal School Board per guidelines regarding elementary schools. —mc10 (t/c) 04:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to an article on the school district or locality, as is the present practice for most elementary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per consensus.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:03, 14 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 all. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gearóid Morrissey[edit]

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

Renomination after things got a bit messy in the last AfD. Non-notable footballer who is yet to even play in (EDIT: the top tier of) the League of Ireland, which is considered a dubious claim to notability itself. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following players that have never played at LOI (EDIT: Premier League) level. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - LoI isn't fully-pro, and the 1st Division certainly isn't. All players fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - All these players play in the League of Ireland, unlike what is stated above. These players meet WP:GNG. Hsetne (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon my ignorance, and allow me to clarify. I meant the above players had never played in the top tier of Irish football, the Premier League. As far as I'm aware the First Division isn't even to close to being fully professional. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. League of Ireland Premier Division isn't fully professional and neither is the First Division. They fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all They satisfy WP:GNG, they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Loitid (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Although Kanagh, Kenneally, Holland and Morrisey have played for Cork City, the League of Ireland is not a fully professional league and so none of these players pass WP:NFOOTBALL. While there are sources on these articles, most of these are from first party sources (such as their respective teams and FAI) and the rest are just run-of-the-mill sports coverage such as match reports and transfer news which fail WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG. —BETTIA— ^talk 08:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, most articles about football players on wikipedia are relying on match reports and transfer news, even those at the highest level of the game. That's generally where you find/source information about footballers. Aren't the FAI a secondary source? Their coverage in print media (Irish national and local newspapers) hasn't been taken into account either. Hsetne (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The FAI references are about the players representing the country's national youth sides, so they would be construed as primary sources. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - none of these players have played in a fully professional league, which is required to meet WP:NSPORT and the coverage of these players is largely routine and trivial meaning they all fail WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:14, 13 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 per G2. MrKIA11 (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Chupapi[edit]

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

Almost empty article. I searched for its name on the web, and I really don't get what it is supposed to be about. Maimai009 09:20, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vava Suresh[edit]

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

Dubious notability (?) PaoloNapolitano (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This snake expert and conservationist has had in-depth coverage in major newspapers in India. Cullen328 (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had in-depth coverage in media.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has has a lot of in-depth coverage in media and surprisingly, satisfies notability for a snake handler, lecturing in college on venomous snakes. Article could use improvement.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Noted ophiologist from Kerala, India.--Anoopkn (talk) 14:23, 12 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. Sandstein 05:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khadar[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2007, with dubious statements and dictionary definitions. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Factually accuracy of this article is highly dubious. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability of this name (family or given name? it doesn't say) is not even asserted, much less demonstrated. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 13 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. Sandstein 05:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minrajsankul[edit]

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

Primary schools are almost never notable by themselves. Unless this school can qualify under WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable sources, it should be deleted. Since it appears to be a private school, there probably isn't any good redirect target, except for maybe the city. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is one of a series of articles that have been created by User:KanaraBrijraj and subsequently deleted by the community. I have the feeling that user may also be User:MrBrijraj and there have been definite spammy aspects to the various articles. I can find nothing to support WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - research has not provided any further information that could even justify redirecting to the locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no philosophy of education at the school is offered, no curriculum, and the external reference is still under construction. Article is of no real notability.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:38, 9 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. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Walsh[edit]

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

A biography of a professor. He's written or edited some books and has been quoted briefly in several news stories, but the article lists no other claims to notability. Half of the short bio is copied from his faculty profile page. Therefore the article does not appear to meet WP:PROFESSOR. Will Beback talk 06:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BIO as there is significant coverage in multiple independent sources, namely two lengthy interviews for which he was the subject: [24], [25] and a review of one of his books [26] Qwfp (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Excellent cites on GS: 601, 188, 131, 151... with h index of 25. A clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Also the news items contribute to general notability. Please will the nominator explain why he did not refer to these important citation data in his AfD nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There's no indication of any of that in the article. As written, it did not include indications of notability. Could you please add that material to the article? Will Beback talk 03:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Before it is the job of the nominator to investigate sources and improve the article, if this can be done, before taking it to AfD. AfD is not meant to be a mechanism for improving BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I checked the subject's university bio and found nothing there to indicate notability. If you'd like to improve the article, then do so. If not, not. Will Beback talk 03:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, one of his books got a mixed academic review[27] but the reviewer seems to respect the person's knowledge. The article subject doesn't seem engaged in controversy or self-promotion that would tend to mess up the article's neutrality, my usual reasons for wanting to get rid of biographies. This article seems harmless. There may be other reviews of the person's books out there--I stopped looking after finding that one. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A review is a review is a review. Any sort contributes to notability. This AfD is not an academic promotions board. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Added: Hmm, he has a somewhat self-promoting personal site.[28] I see WP:AUTHOR has been tightened up somewhat so even with all those books I'm not sure if he qualifies now (WP:PROF is separate). But I tend to interpret notability for academic authors a bit more loosely than for general commercial authors, on the theory that we're here to disseminate knowledge. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keepThe World of Shamanism: New Views of an Ancient Tradition and A Sociable God: Toward a New Understanding of Religion are two well received books thus Meets WP:PROF. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 11 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. J04n(talk page) 10:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Blasco[edit]

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

A couple of unreliable database listings and wikimirrors aside, I can't find reliable, secondary sources to establish the notability of this screenwriter. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish general notability. As a screenwriter, WP:CREATIVE also is applicable, but there is no indication that he meets this. IMDB does list his writing credit for SSX on Tour, but IMDB isn't a reliable source, and this is simply a credit listing. The claim as a writer for Critters 5 is unverifiable as I can find no indication that a Critters 5 is even being produced as the Critter film series only runs from 1 to 4. Even if that were to be verified, that hardly represents a body of work that would qualify under criteria for creative professionals. -- Whpq (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence WP:GNG is (or could be) met. GregorB (talk) 12:08, 10 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) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Kiss My Ass[edit]

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

Non-album single that has no notability. No substantial ghits - just lyrics sites, stuff like that. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to agree with nom, as single wasn't part of any album, never charted, almost no one has ever heard of it in wp:rs land. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tavares J Beverley[edit]

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

Long-term unreferenced BLP, can't find reliable, secondary sources to establish the notability of this producer under the general notability guideline. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly a hoax. No IMDb.com entry. Google results in a mirrored facebook account.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dubious notability at a minimum. Unsourced BLP for sure. Not necessarily a hoax, however, as I did find THIS LINK for "Beverly Boy Productions," (note spelling) which mentions Tavares Beverley by name and makes most of the main claims of the article plausible. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After much searching, I have not been able to find any notable acting credits. The person's name is spelled Beverly, BTW. Beverly Boy Productions appears to be a very small company. See this. As far as I can tell, neither Beverly, nor his company, has ever attracted any press. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 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, A7. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwep[edit]

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

Non-notable made-up country. E Wing (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a bunch of youngsters and their pet project, and not notable. Possibly even a CSD A7, unimportant web content or unimportant group of people -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claim of notability is even given. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:45, 6 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 (G12) by RHaworth. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Vorn[edit]

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

Article is copied from artist's website. Worse, all I could find on said artist are two articles from a student newspaper, this and this. That is not enough, in my opinion, to pass the bar. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD-tagged as a G12. Whole article is a copy of various parts of the site. E Wing (talk) 06:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Both articles can be considered as COI; the articles and the site are both under The Concordian website. E Wing (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see the article has now been deleted. Once I got home from work I'd been intending to work up an alternative version, not based on the Copyvio material. There are additional articles out there which can form the basis for this, not least this article by Angela Plohman published by the Daniel Langlois Foundation. Also evidential links to the Prix Ars Electronica site. For just now, I thought I'd log these; not sure if I'll actually take them further with a replacement article which would presumably have to come to AfD for fuller consideration. AllyD (talk) 17:48, 6 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, G4. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JohnnyBoyXo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A YouTube performer with questionable notability Eeekster (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created this to fix a malformed AFD that restarted the old nom. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the nominator added this nomination at the end of the previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JohnnyBoyXo for the article, I deleted it there, and created this second nomination with it. See [29] for the nomination in the old AFD. Monty ₈₄₅ 06:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article was deleted on December 2nd, 2010 as a result of the first AFD, but it was recreated on April 1, 2011. Therefore I would request salting after the article is deleted this second time. ArcAngel (talk) ) 12:06, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Schoonover[edit]

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

High school basketball player who was apparently the MVP of the "KCAA" tournament (which doesn't appear to have a wikipedia article). Anyway does not meet Wikipedia:Notabilty (sports)#Basketball and after searching through gnews etc I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jenks24 (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of google and newspaper databases reveals no non-trivial coverage in independent, verifiable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The KCAA appears to be some sort of Christian high school athletics association. (Most schools in Kentucky play in the KHSAA.) Maybe if this kid was playing for a major college program, there would be something worth keeping here, but I see no evidence that that is the case. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above and Nom. Wilbysuffolk talk 00:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This guy is so far from notable that he can't even see it from here. Also probably a vanity article since the user who created it has no other WP edits in his/her history. Rikster2 (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In case you're interested, an A7 speedy delete tag was declined for this article as there is a credible assertion of significance. Jenks24 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. That was a bad call. Since when is being named MVP in a lower-division HS basketball tournament a credible assertion of significance? Rikster2 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmm, I'm thinking it was possibly borderline and admins will generally decline if they think a speedy delete call would be borderline. That being said, I'm not an admin and perhaps you would be better off asking the declining admin, ErikHaugen (talk · contribs), for an explanation. Jenks24 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Speedy Delete/Delete - it isn't that big a deal. I will say this, after some research I found Schoonover's Facebook page and it says he graduated HS in 2010 and attends Northern Kentucky University. He isn't even listed on the roster for NKU basketball (found here). I am now 100% convinced that this page is a vanity page. Rikster2 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Therefore the page should have been deleted when speedyed? Wilbysuffolk talk 01:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Big time. Did nobody catch that the article creator's username is "Scoonie1492?" Definitely a vanity article and should be deleted immediately IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 03:39, 10 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 Close as userfied. Article was userfied per the creator's request. VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Math mumble[edit]

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

This article provides no sources (the to EL don't mention the concept); I can find nothing in either a general search or a google scholar search. It is somewhere between original research, something made up one day, and a hoax. Unless reliable sources can be provided documenting this concept as something that has been already studied and is notable, it should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

math mumble[edit]

How do I move this article to the sandbox to work on the citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnorman1 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to userfy the article... I think that could be done as a speedy rename, and speedy closure of this AfD... some kind admin coming by might see this... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:27, 6 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. Sandstein 05:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Moore (lawyer)[edit]

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

deprodded by an anon. Fails notability, in that there are a number of passing mentions due to reporting of various trials he has prosecuted, but I haven't found any independent reliable sources writing about him. Well known != well documented dramatic (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be sufficiently notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. Could we address the question whether readers might want to know something about this person who has been involved in import issues? --Bduke (Discussion) 12:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - a good comparison would be Judith Ablett-Kerr. A major newspaper thought it worthy to send a features writer to research and write a feature story about her life. [30] - for Wikipedia's purposes this demonstrates her notability, and we really should have an article about her. It appears that no one has done that for Simon Moore. dramatic (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, we can address that issue. Since it appears that no articles exist about this individual from any reliable sources, it can be assumed that no reader might want to know something about this person. That is the issue: No mentions outside Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004, and there is a shortage of information about him even within that trial. The event may be notable (and has an article) but outside the one event, the lawyer isn't, per the guidelines at Wikipedia. If there are multiple significant coverages by major papers or other reliable sources that I have somehow missed, I would be happy to reconsider. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 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. Sandstein 05:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Registered Paralegal[edit]

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

Seems unnecessary/non-notable. Basically it just repeats the definition of what a paralegal is with Florida being specifically added in. There doesn't seem to be any difference between a Florida Paralegal and any other paralegal. either way (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that a state registers something does not make it a distinct thing for an article.Borock (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what about my driver's license? Kansan (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as nothing in the article asserts that Florida's procedures are particularly notable in their own right. The article paralegal is enough. Kansan (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the information is misleading. The designation of Registered Paralegal is national and is trademarked by NFPA. Not a useful search term for paralegal. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kunes[edit]

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

WITHDRAW nomination in light of new refs. Indeed notable as a criminal. Very sad. Hairhorn (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable autobiography, dubious entry. This started out with a great deal of puffery and unsourced claims, such as being an uncredited writer on Rain Man, winning the O. Henry and Faulkner awards, and so on. Many of these claims are easily debunked online, and have since been blanked by myself and other editors. I was originally adding {citation needed} tags instead of blanking, but this story from the March 31, 2011 Santa Barbara Independent about Steven Kunes puts any unsourced claims in an extremely poor light. What's left is not enough to make him notable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he is a notable rogue, con artist, liar and screen writer. He will get out of jail one day, and if he tries to make other wild claims, people can look him up on Wikipedia. I will put this article on my watch list to be sure that Kunes doesn't edit it into a pack of lies, and I encourage other editors to do the same. Cullen328 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that someone might try the line that "he's notable as a criminal". I have some sympathy for this view, but as far as I can tell, the sources are just not there. "Non-notable screenwriter + non-notable criminal" doesn't really add up to something notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, veracity is highly suspect, and this appears to be nearly impossible to verify with authority. If he gets caught up in a big crime that gets media attention, he can be restores, so to speak. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article is a waste of everyone's time, this person is not notable and as such does not meet wikipedia's guidelines to warrant a page. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.195.157 (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — 98.108.195.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete~~ Sources don't show notability. Even as a con man he seems to be small fry. --Crusio (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - How much of a reliable source is the Santa Barbara Independent? It appears to be more like examiner.com than like a local alternative weekly, and they admit themselves that Kunes wrote for them. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia. This person has also stire dup quite alot of edits from users here on Wikipedia. Which shows to me that there is a interest for the person.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Orange Mike. The Santa Barabara Independent has professional editorial control, and an audited print circulation of 40,000. See here [31] for more information about that paper. The author of the story is on the paid editorial staff of the newspaper. As for Kunes being non-notable, he triggered a notable scandal covered by the New York Times [32] and many other newspapers [33], [34] and magazines [35] back in 1982, when he fabricated an interview with the reclusive J. D. Salinger, who then sued him. I remember reading about that case nearly 30 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That NYT link gets me to a pay-wall barrier. However, I found this. I'm not sure whether this amounts to much notability beyond BLP1E. The Salinger episode certainly got attention, but it is only one event. Swindling a friend out of 2000 bucks, however reprehensible, is nothing out of the ordinary. Neither is claiming to be a famous writer and having written Rain Man. --Crusio (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More The incident has been described in a biography of Salinger here [36]. The Santa Barbara Independent story makes it clear that Kunes is far more than a case of BLP1E. If you search using the Google News tool, you may get past the pay wall and be able to read the entire lengthy New York Times story. Cullen328 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Salinger scam incident tips the balance clearly on the side of retaining this. The guy was trying to scam us like he did everybody else. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep, per Orangemike and Cullen328. --Crusio (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was tempted to AFD this myself (and I'm no deletionist). But the Salinger incident is clearly notable. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:03, 7 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Counts[edit]

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

unremarkable local effort, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. I'm finding zero hits on the title outside of the official website. All information in the article appears to be from primary sources (the official website) or original research. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a Carolinian, even I haven't heard of it, seen any coverage, and can't find any coverage that would even marginally pass wp:rs guidelines. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability outside the context of University of North Carolina. The only Google web and news hits I find are on sources internal to the university. Topic can be discussed (briefly, please) in the university article. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a short and much clearer paragraph could be added to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. After reading this bloated article I still don't know what Carolina Counts is: a fundraising vehicle? a scholarship program? an advisory committee? what? --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 13 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. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek stories by in-universe chronology[edit]

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

Appears to be an article that was created or expanded while ignoring the consensus at this AFD. This list is the original research of Wikipedia editors based on their interpretation of the fiction. Also violates WP:NOT#PLOT which requires that we discuss the reception and significance of something in reliable sources, instead of merely having fans retell the story (no matter how original the presentation might be). This type of list belongs at Memory Alpha and not Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might be a WP:COPYVIO. See this website: [37] ... at best, it's still sourced to unreliable material and entirely original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fanboy over-enthusiasm run amok, a WP:OR in-universe reorganizing and rehash. Send it off to the Trekkie Wiki if they have any use for it. Tarc (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting, but it's a purely in universe TV Guide, not an encyclopedia entry. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' or Transwiki somewhere. Pretty obvious. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Memory Alpha and link to it there. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete - I could see keeping this article if it was only an attempt to organize the existing Wikipedia articles. A pure mechanical ordering is not original research and this list seems similar to other lists in Category:Star Trek episode lists. I did not put this down as a keep yet as the article also seems to be an attempt to organize articles on Memory Alpha. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I should add that those "unoriginal" organizational lists already exist. See Category:Star Trek episode lists. Those other lists conform with policy and IMO will be mainstays of the encyclopedia. This specific list is more problematic for reasons I stated in the nomination. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list I had inspected earlier was List of Star Trek: Enterprise story arcs which seems to suffer the same problems as List of Star Trek stories by in-universe chronology which this AFD is about. I was tired and did not look at the other lists assuming all of them were similar to these two. In checking now, the remaining lists are of episodes for various Star Trek series where the lists themselves have also been well documented meaning they are notable and available from reliable sources. I was wrong on the "mechanical ordering" as apparently some of the dates used were invented just for this list. For example, the list has All Our Yesterdays at c. 2700 BC but that date is not mentioned in the article and is apparently an invention by the Memory Alpha editors.

In looking at it again, I also don't see any value to the list the way it's presented. Various Star Trek incidents or episodes involved time travel to the past. There's nothing to be gained by identifying those incidents/episodes and then sorting the results into a chronology, particularly as Category:Star Trek time travel episodes already exists. With these items in mind, I changed my comment to a delete. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated in the nomination, the article appears to be original research and a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world notability and I also do not think that the article meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article may be material appropriate for a fansite, but not for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am interested in hearing exactly why you believe this is OR; most Star Trek for episodes begin with an overt listing of the date. COPYVIO and OR both? I question the credibility of the author of such a statement, when the obvious thing to say would be that here is a source, but there may be COPYVIO problems to remediate. On closer examination, there appears to be no COPYVIO either... Anarchangel (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best source for this information, bar none, is Memory Alpha - a fantastic site for anyone who's every wanted to look something up about the series. Memory Beta, for the non-canon works, is equally good. Neither is a usable source for this Wikipedia, however. The OR concern is troubling, as well - we can make pretty good guesses on some dates, sometimes with a high level of accuracy, but unless it's formally stated somewhere, it's speculation. I doubt very much that this trips over COPYVIO. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:44, 11 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) 01:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jadoo TV[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, not MOS, lots of original research. Jasper Deng (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 30 March 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) 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of general notability due to a lack of verifiable independent sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:54, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky's Chocolates[edit]

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

Pure advertising, for a company that does not satisfy notability criteria. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asabenn (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (replying to "By all means persuade me (and others) otherwise, but it all seems to be based on blogs, lightweight "features" in magazines, and advertising. Where is the coverage in reliable sources? I recommend that you join in the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky's Chocolates" )[reply]

I suppose it might be a fault of chocolate business that magazines that would cover it would be lightweight. The most immediate thing I can say for reliable sources is their coverage in a piece by Huma Qureshi here - http://humaqureshi.co.uk/?p=357 - who herself writes for the Guardian/Observer - http://humaqureshi.co.uk/?page_id=2 - though this piece was for the British Baker Magazine (http://www.bakeryinfo.co.uk/). Would that help?

Delete as not notable. If the only claim to distinctivness, in the Guardian piece, is that they are making cakes that are square it falls a long way short. There are a lot of small chocolatiers and specialist bakers in the UK at the moment. Only very few can hope to make it to the heady heights of a Wikipedia article. AJHingston (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply Well, I take the point about the many small chocolatiers and that the two main features so far of the brand are the shape, and the style taken from Alice in Wonderland. That said, would it be allowable to perhaps add a reference to them on the Works based on Alice in Wonderland page (merging them into a reference on a bigger page), as people whose work is based on the story? And obviously later on their own page if more coverage etc?Asabenn (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Asabenn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment Only extra thing I can add is, in contrast to other small chocolatiers, it has been well reviewed/repped by Paul A. Young (whom Wikipedia does cover!)Asabenn (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep Have added more reviews (especially one from The Cooking Channel), and noted an extra event to attest for notability. Hope that's a step in a better direction Asabenn (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if the piece is more on the right lines now? Asabenn (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly greatly improved, but I still see no mention of Lucky's in reliable sources - just blogs and trivial journalistic fluff - and the article still seems to be mainly advertising, which is not what Wikipedia is for. It's a shame that more people have not offered their opinions here. I'm not sure what happens if this debate does not elicit more interest. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply Hiya Snalwibma, thanks for the quick reply! Ok well it isn't looking possible to find anything more stoutly journalistic than the 'blogs and trivial..fluff' like the guardian journo's article and the Urban Grocer's reviews. Also, I'm tempted to ask out of interest what parts are clashing as 'advertising', only since I've aimed to stick close to dry fact (i.e. 'they do x, inspired by y. They started at z, and were reviewed thus' etc'). Still, I'm assuming the lack of coverage in bigger journals like UK newspapers will remain a hitch - in such a case, could I at least move the info back to one of my userpages (to later hopefully add any extra sources as they get coverage?) Asabenn (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 30 March 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) 00:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have liked to vote to keep but the coverage in published secondary sources, not just blogs, is just not there. Borock (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reply Since I'm not really able to find any extra new secondary sources, I've moved the page details back to one of my userpages so it remains a draft. But yeah, I guess then delete for the moment (hopefully can make again later when extra material). Asabenn (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to find sources that would satisfy the requirements for notability. Very possibly due to the fact that the company has only been open several months. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete nothing in gnews. fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 8 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) 01:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tumblewoof[edit]

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

Musician that does not pass WP:MUSIC. Has one album, self-published on the web. No external sources. Captain Hindsight (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 31 March 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) 00:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I would have deleted this under A7 if it was so labelled. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 12 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. Sandstein 05:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Nedrow[edit]

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

No evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people). Coverage is limited to two brief, single-paragraph treatments in articles on broader subjects, which falls far below WP:GNG's standard of "significant coverage". Apparently no coverage at all outside the immediate locality. The article's tone is promotional, its objective appears to be self-promotion, and it contains generous doses of original research, problems usually dealt with through normal editing but which in this case are not remediable because of the paucity of reliable sources. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This clearly falls below the threshold for notability. Maybe some day, but she doesn't pass today. No coverage in RS, only blogs, nary a single gnews entry even. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am debating the removal of this article. I loosely based my article on how Steven Purugganan's article was made. I am confused as to why he has mostly all references from YouTube yet his article has not been questioned. I see that Rrburke has said I lack reliable sources, but I am just confused as to why his article has not been questioned as his has less reliable sources for his information

Thank you,

Speedstackinggirl (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of other articles that also need to be up for deletion, perhaps including the one you mentioned. That isn't an argument to keep this one, however, it just shows how backlogged we are at deleting articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:49, 5 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) 00:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is lacking. Eeekster (talk) 00:54, 12 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. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SportstalkCLEVELAND[edit]

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

Not notable. Little or no coverage online (some passing mentions in articles on other subjects). No reliable sources found online (using Google News, Books, etc.), which may explain why there are none in the article to begin with. User who created page may have connection to subject. Same user has apparently tried to delete the page twice: here and here. Only one other Wikipedia article (Bruce Drennan, created by same user) links to this article. Subject's website apparently no longer exists.
-- Levdr1 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per my findings at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SportstalkNETWORK this at least has mentions. Plus, since this is one of the few places WWE allows its active wrestlers to be interviewed shows the WWE finds it notable.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A handful of mentions in online media (most, if not all, with different subjects) fails to demonstrate notability. There is not a single article online or in print which focuses on SportstalkCleveland itself. Also, while its programs may very well interview "active wrestlers" from the WWE, there are simply no reliable sources available to verify that claim (even so, that fact alone isn't enough to keep this article). --Levdr1 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Levdr1 who correctly points out that trivial mentions do not make notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:34, 2 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) 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An assertion of notability doesn't count for scratch if it can't be verified by reliable sources (the organization's own website doesn't count.) Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 6 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. Sandstein 05:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declan McDonnell[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Clearly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Being mayor of an Irish city is a largely ceremonial post, held by a councillor for a one-year term. It does not make McDonnell notable. Lincolnite (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See debate at Pádraig Conneely

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 March 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) 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like the sources are good enough for me. I don't see how Irish mayors are an exemption from WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. Being Queen of England is also a "largely ceremonial post" that is why we don't have "ceremonial post" as a Wikipedia exclusion rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:POLITICIAN.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I suppose he is comparatively less notable then a lot of other politicians out there, he did hold an important post albeit ceremonial. I agree with Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). The article is well sourced as well. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above - because our mayors are not democratically elected as mayors but merely appointed by their fellow councillors for a year, effectively as a chairperson of the council. They have no special executive powers. Local councillors are not important enough for wikipedia.Red Hurley (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hurley. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article demonstrate that the subject pass the notability guideline. Alansohn (talk) 04:08, 12 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. Sandstein 05:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pádraig Conneely[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Being mayor of an Irish city is a largely ceremonial post, held by a councillor for a one-year term. It does not make Conneely notable. I'd argue is places him outside the scope of WP:POLITICIAN. Lincolnite (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See related Declan McDonnell

So he does meet the criteria as laid out at WP:POLITICIAN, but mayors of Irish cities are somehow an exception? RashersTierney (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that my original rationale was confusingly worded; I've amended it in light of your comments. The question is whether the term "mayor" in WP:POLITICIAN is intended to encompass ceremonial mayors who have little (if any) executive power. Based on the remainder of WP:POLITICIAN, I would have thought that it clearly doesn't. Ceremonial mayors are not limited to Ireland, incidentally. They're common in the UK and in some US states also (many medium-sized California cities, for example, operate on the city manager model and rotate the mayoralty among councilmembers on an annual basis). --Lincolnite (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Presidency is mainly ceremonial in nature, as was the office of Governor-General of the Irish Free State. The fact that an office is mainly ceremonial does not preclude it from carrying formal status. Perhaps the issue should be teased out at the relevant guideline. RashersTierney (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the holders of those offices are undoubtedly "politicians [...] who have held [...] national [...] office" and thus meet the first prong of WP:POLITICIAN. Ceremonial mayors are not. --Lincolnite (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't address the issue of whether some city mayors should be considered notable and others not. This really should be addressed at the guideline, if you feel such a distinction must be made. RashersTierney (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the guidelines make very clear that some city mayors should be considered notable and others not. Being a mayor doesn't confer notability per WP:POLITICIAN. The second prong of WP:P says the following are notable: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion." The words "generally speaking" clearly don't imply that a mayor of a regionally important city is automatically notable. In summary, some city mayors are notable (i.e. those that are "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") and some are not (i.e. those that haven't). --Lincolnite (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale for deletion was that this particular city mayor falls outside the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. As that guideline is presently worded, he doesn't. RashersTierney (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't he? Unless the case is made that he's a "[m]ajor local political figures who [has] received significant press coverage", then I'm afraid he does fall outside WP:POLITICIAN. --Lincolnite (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 31 March 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) 00:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like the source is good enough for me. I don't see how Irish mayors are an exemption from WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: can you explain how this man meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG? As I pointed out in the discussion above, WP:POLITICIAN doesn't automatically make any big city mayor notable, whether Irish or not. The reference to mayors is in the context of: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion." There's clearly no suggestion that a mayor is automatically notable... --Lincolnite (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being Queen of England is also a "largely ceremonial post" that is why we don't have that as a Wikipedia rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be repetitive, but can you explain how this man meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG? Are you arguing he's a "Major local political figures who ha[s] received significant press coverage"? --Lincolnite (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because our mayors are not democratically elected as mayors but merely appointed by their fellow councillors for a year, effectively as a chairperson of the council. They have no special executive powers. Local councillors are not important enough for wikipedia.Red Hurley (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hurley. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like at the article for Declan McDonnell, the sources provided here are verifiable and reliable and meet the notability standard, independent of the ceremonial nature of the position. Alansohn (talk) 04:11, 12 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 procedural keep. Article was tagged as being under discussion here, but the tag was removed shortly afterward and there have been many edits in the interim. While I am loath to reward the out-of-process removal of the tag the fact remains that the majority of the time this was nominated it was not properly tagged as such and other users who came in and edited it in good faith were probably not aware of this discussion. Therefore this process is tainted and is closed without prejudice against re-nomination at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Haur[edit]

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

Notability issues. Bio sources are blogs and self promotion. Turn685 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete None of the sources provided is actually both secondary and reliable, Saatchi is open to everyone, etc. I did find two more reliable mentions. [38] mentions him with regard to epSite, and [39] mentions in passing him as a digital artist, but neither to my eye rises to significant coverage, which feels short of the WP:GNG to me. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:27, 4 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) 00:38, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Scoping[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Rationale was "Not WP:HOWTO. Not a game guide." I am neutral. Jujutacular ^talk 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a how to guide or a game guide. Jenks24 (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously - it's just a game-playing "How To" guide -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook example of a "how to" guide, which of course, Wikipedia is not. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my own PROD rationale (that I admittedly messed up at first). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:21, 6 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) • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I originally marked this with a CSD when the article was create, which was switched to a PROD. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Cymru82 (talk) 17:25, 10 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} 03:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Germans Māliņš[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The article was previously kept following this afd on the grounds that he had been called to the national team, however he never actually played which is the requirement for notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doroševs He plays in the Azerbaijan Premier League, which appears to be fully-professional. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Māliņš - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doroševs - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Māliņš. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:11, 8 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.