The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kotta[edit]

Kotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN. Has not played a match yet. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources and very minimal. Naomib1996 (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to have played (http://www.footballdatabase.eu/football.joueurs..kotta.144490.en.html), but there is a significant lack of coverage MadCow257 (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That site does not support a claim that he played - games played columns are empty and video could be anything - friendly, training match, youth match - stands are not exactly brimming with supporters. --ClubOranje^T 11:11, 15 August 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. Courcelles 00:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady (rapper)[edit]

Lady (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO Vanadus (talk | contribs) 23:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - FailsWP:MUSIC. Not notable. Minor coverage. Too soon. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is not a notable person so i think this article should be deleted. Tony (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find evidence of a charted album or song, or news coverage MadCow257 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 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. Courcelles 00:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Northern Electric Radio[edit]

List of Northern Electric Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete per the "spirit" of what WP is not. It is a list without annotations. A list of this type is best suited to being written in prose. Also the article name is not very good - there is an unrelated Northern Electric and the caps and grammar is wrong. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not because of the problems raised by the nominator, which are fixable, but because the article provides absolutely no evidence that any of these radios are notable, collectable, historic, or in any way worthy of being listed in an encyclopedia. There is also a complete lack of context; it's not even clear who or what "Northern Electric" was (a little sleuthing suggests it was a forerunner of Nortel). BTW someone might want to nominate Northern Electric phones for deletion for the same reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 16 August 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. The delete commentators say that he doesn't have multiple, reliable sources backing him up, the keep commentators say he doesn't, but that doesn't matter due to his status. His status does not fall into one of the categories of "people excluded from the general notability guideline", and this is thus irrelevant; Doctor Blofeld notes that "I don't see much difference between this and a lot of US biographies on minor sportspeople and local governors", and I don't either, but until we have an individualised exception from WP:N for police chiefs, that argument doesn't hold a lot of weight. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. T. Alley[edit]

J. T. Alley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No claim to notability is given in the intro other than "police chief of Lubbock, Texas." Does every police chief need an article? Jsharpminor (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Sourcing is two obituaries (which say nice things, as obituaries tend to, but aren't substantial news coverage), a record of death, and a dead link to what looks to have been photographs. While a police chief of a town like Lubbock runs a decent chance of having notability, I'm simply not able to find any sources supporting that possibility in this particular case. All the news mentions I can find are just that - mentions, in the style of "police chief Alley said [blah blah] about case [blah]" - and not substantial coverage. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No real assertion of notability (police chief of Lubbock is not enough), and coverage in reliable sources is insufficient to support retaining an article. cmadler (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above, the obits and sourcing available does not meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG, and no indication this meets WP:N any other way. Novaseminary (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per "He was one of the founders as well as a President of the Texas Police Chiefs' Association." A state police association should be notable, even if not every chief is. I don't see much difference between this and a lot of US biographies on minor sportspeople and local governors. I do sort of frown against the overfocus on less known biographies in the US when we are missing much more notable biographies from countries outside the Anglosphere but I think this does have some claim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Page is already well written with some citations. Has several things which make him notable enough to warrant not deleting. MadCow257 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sourced and sourcable to more that just obituaries. Was respected and oft-quoted in his field. Made major contributions to Texas and law enforcement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment But which sources are sufficient to meet WP:BASIC? Is it just you feeling he is notable, or do you think the subject meets WPs notability criteria? Novaseminary (talk) 03:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although it is a marginal case. J. T. Alley's long service is interesting, and certainly it would be appropriate to mention this individual in the Lubbock, Texas article, an article about the Lubbock Police Department, or in a list of presidents of the Texas Police Chiefs' Association. But I just ran through a Google Newspapers search on Alley's name during his term as chief of police, and there were only nine mentions, all having to do with flags on uniforms. Doesn't seem to meet the notability threshold. Neutrality^talk 17:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep Police chiefs in large cities have always done sufficiently controversial things that they are notable--it goes with the job. . Lubbock is a small city (220,000) but home to as very large college (Texas Tech,)--a factor which always increases the police activity and significance. There are at any rate enough sources for WP:GNG. Normally, round here, people thing meeting the GNG settles the issue, but WP:LOCAL is one of the exceptions that is considered to over-ride it in a negative direction. I can see the logic of that--and indeed things that fall under LOCAL are where I tend to be a deletionist. But the restriction is really arbitrary and amounts entirely to a judgement call in each case--if we want to exclude an article like this, we say the importance & sources are only local; if we want to include it, we say they're wider because of one or another reason. I could construct an argument that would convince myself either way on this one. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed "President of the Texas Police Chiefs' Association". Statewide chief office in the profession is notable , for any profession. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. People seem to be confused - the Texas Police Chiefs' Association is a professional association, not a government agency. There are a very large number of professional societies and associations in each state. In Texas there must be at least 300 or more. There is no reason to believe that everyone who serves a one- or two-year term of any one of these is per se notable Neutrality^talk 19:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To further Neutrality's point, this group is not covered in WP, and the only mention of it on WP is in this article. Of course, maybe the group is notable and WP is lacking. But there is no reason to believe that there is any consensus that being the head of this group nowehre else mentioned on WP conveys automatic, inherent notability on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep by author. Notability (statewide president of Police Chiefs Association) and self-evident. Article well-written. Billy Hathorn (talk)

• Comment Well-written, says the creator. But where are the RSs? Every flavor of N requires RSs or very good reason to believe they exist. What guideline does this meet? Novaseminary (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of independent reliable sources establishing notability. I tried a Google search, but I couldn't find any mention outside Lubbock and environs (except for the AP news story printed in the Charleston, SC News and Courier listing the subject as one of many advocating for the right of policemen to wear US flags on their uniforms). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:47, 18 August 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. It's fairly obvious that either canvassing or outright sockpuppetry was going on here, but even after that is filtered out there is still a consensus that the subject is sufficiently notable for an article, although in need of some rewriting. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Unified Communications Management[edit]

Avaya Unified Communications Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Non-notable software per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY. See also my discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep informatrional not promotional WP:NOTABLE review notable refs. 108.110.185.190 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — 108.110.185.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: This "keep" vote is from the author.

• Delete Jsharpminor (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this error after checking into my hotel, I am not the author 108.110.185.190 (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. However, you've been editing a whole bunch of Avaya articles that are all AfD'd. Just wanted to let other editors know about the potential conflict of interest, whyever you may have one. Cheers, Jsharpminor (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks - I'll ask author 108.110.185.190 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Unified Communications Product family has a long and notable history. Signficiant information is being added to the page to make it substantial, educational and informational not just bullets. There are several other pages on similar subjects with less content than this such as CiscoWorks with only bullet points and are not WP:NOTABLE that have not been nominated for deletion. Let's make sure that Wikipedia remains democratic and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.199.68.157 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — 216.199.68.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete far too much primary content only lightly reworked to avoid copyvio. If competing product suites have not yet been AfD'd that shouldn't influence discussion here. - Pointillist (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article provides good information about Unified Communications and is corroborated well by good references.Hence definitely a Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machismo500 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The artice has been edited to remove any spurious marketing material and now provides both substantive and WP:NOTABLE content. This article is now all original work, and I cannot find any examples of similar copyright work. As noted by the external references by independant third party authors the product line is notable and innovative. - ManagementMan (contribs]) 02:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — ManagementMan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Text in the article that would appear to be marketing or promotional such as Comprehensive or Innovative web based are actually corroborated in the references from indeoendant authors included in the Article if you actually take the time to read them all. This is a notable and well written article with many references. I would question the judgement of anyone deleting this article as it stands now and leaving a simple bulleted page like CiscoWorks as the user above mentions. - 71.81.24.12(contribs) 04:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.24.12 (talk) — 71.81.24.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep, as this article is well-written and notable enough to have its own article and is one of the booms of Avaya, in opposite of my votes on other Avaya nominations. This-one should stay, IMO. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided This might be the one exception to my recommendations here and here that every item in that Avaya template should be deleted (without a redirect) in a mass housecleaning, and the various product lines should get a simple mention or at most a paragraph at Avaya. However, if kept this article needs to be trimmed by about 90%; it is a bloated mass of technical detail. Wikipedia is neither a sales catalog nor a technical manual, but that's what most of these Avaya articles appear to be. --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Well written with lots of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtex 1 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. I'm also worried about the number of contributors to this discussion who appear to be unfamiliar with normal wikipedia processes such as signing entries in discussions such as this. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 15 valid citations with separate authors are cited from within the article establishes WP:NOTABLE and this software has 15 years of history. I found thousands of additional citations within google searches and will add if needed. Geek2003 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — Geek2003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment Closing admin: most keeps are SPAs involved in editing Avaya topic of questionable notability. Was going to non-admin close keep until I verified this.--Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ManagementMan has been opened.--Cerejota (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm concerned that the article reads much more like a product brochure than a dispassionate discussion, and that many of its writers and defenders seem suspiciously CoI'ed. However, given the numerous references to the subject (or, at least, to one of its component parts, formerly called Optivity) in the books and magazines cited as sources, I feel forced to acknowledge that the subject does seem to satisfy our notability criteria. If the article is kept, though, it still needs a lot of paring down. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article should be renamed after it's former name, if that's the name it's more commonly known as? There does seem to be quite a bit of renaming in this group of articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lots of issues so understandable it ended up here, but regular editing can fix that. Szzuk (talk) 11:02, 18 August 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, technically speedy delete. The only editors who have added substance to the article have concurred in its deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Mobile[edit]

Polar Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable company with no substantial references offered to assert notability. Article creator is a marketing intern at the company (see Google) so clear COI Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree about the COI Bob, but after looking through the article and references, I would say that this company is not unremarkable. It is definitely going places. I edited this article slightly as well to make it a bit more substantial. However, I will let you and the other administrators do what you think is right. Thank you. Buddy1965 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This company is on the Deloitte Canadian Fast 50 company list- it's pretty noteworthy. In my opinion, it would be unwise to delete this page when the company is growing that quickly and gaining so much attention.Buddy1965 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inclusions on lists of similar business do not count much for notability, especially ones that have 49 other non-notable businesses on them. This is a mobile solutions provider. Leaving aside the fact that the description begs the question, "Mobile what?" a description as a "solutions provider" is an automatic breach of neutrality policy and grounds for speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I would like to point out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Systems, because I don't understand why this page has not been tagged for deletion yet Polar Mobile's has. It clearly states, "July Systems is the leading provider of cross-platform mobile solutions to businesses worldwide. The cloud -based mobile platform allows businesses to build, manage, market and monetize rich mobile experience easily, quickly and cost effectively." It seems strange to me that promotional pages are left like this while other company pages with a more neutral tone are tagged for deletion. Just something to consider, even though I don't think it will make a difference. Thanks again, 64.34.71.100 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Alas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July Systems. I agree; that article needs some serious scrubbing. The existence of other articles generally is not a strong argument for including another, and the fact that there are dozens of spammy articles out there that should not be taken as models of style or content is one of the reasons why. If this business been recognized as genuinely remarkable so that it's had had significant effects on the development of technology or culture, go ahead and add them; but stuff like making a Top 50 list from an analyst firm does not establish any of those things. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'm glad the other article is being edited/deleted. I am able to give evidence of this company's significant effects and being genuinely remarkable, which I will add shortly. Cheers, 64.34.71.100 (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added some references and information to the article that should prove that the company is genuinely remarkable. Please take a look at the references and let me know if I should change or add anything. Thanks, 64.34.71.100 (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You will need third party references for those claims as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can you clarify what third party references means? What has to be done for that? Thanks, 64.34.71.100 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You'll find an extended discussion at the Verifiability and Reliable source pages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. The IP address 64.34.71.100 (talk · contribs), which has made several contributions to this AfD discussion is registered to Polar Mobile. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is much more trouble than it's worth. I was not aware of how difficult creating it would be. Admin, feel free to delete this article along with all history of the page. Thank you, 64.34.71.100 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this article. I have read the COI page and I apologize for not knowing this before starting the article. In the future, hopefully an outside source will create the company page. Thanks for the help. Nicole.pitre (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable per WP:CORP, no substantial coverage by reliable sources to demonstrate notability. The company may be "going places" but it hasn't got there yet. If it does, then someone without a COI can create an article. There is no deadline. ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement ^. Buddy1965 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 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} 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Viviani[edit]

Federico Viviani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - needs more information. Tony (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are you aware there are two Federico Vivianis;this one...who has sat on the bench for 1 game and a different one who has played many professional matches. --ClubOranje^T 11:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this guys as WP:NFOOTBALL failure with little coverage, but happily support re-creation as the other one if someone has the time and inclination.--ClubOranje^T 09:52, 17 August 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. Courcelles 00:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Energy Saver[edit]

Avaya Energy Saver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This product does not appear notable; the only references provided are not independent. See WP:VRS, WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY.  Chzz  ►  21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. May deserve a mention in Energy Efficient Ethernet but a redir is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep informatrional not promotional WP:NOTABLE review notable refs. 108.110.185.190 (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — 108.110.185.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: This "keep" vote is from the author.

• Delete Jsharpminor (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep appear WP:NOTABLE 2010 Winter Olympics games. LES 953 (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the provided citations are from independent or reliable sources (with the possible exception of this from Network World). Google News finds absolutely nothing. But here's the truly scary thing about that page: look at the template box at the bottom of the page and you will find that every single piece of hardware or software manufactured by Avaya - every individual model of phone or server or router, every protocol, everything - has its own separate Wikipedia article! I seriously doubt if any of them are any more notable than this one is - probably less. Choosing Avaya IP Phone 1140E at random, it is completely unsourced and the article sounds like it is reprinted from the phone's instruction book. Someone needs to do a thorough housecleaning here; this is one of the most thorough examples of spamming I've ever seen. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Informational and not promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtex 1 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per MelanieN and nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per what the nominator said and per MelanieN. Fails WP:N. Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not a mirror of the company's website]. Edison (talk) 20:29, 17 August 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, nominator withdrawn the nomination, only keep votes. This is a non-admin close. 123Ħeðŋeħøŋ456 : Create an account!! 12:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SummerSlam (2011)[edit]

Note, nominator has withdrawn this deletion request, see below  Chzz  ►  12:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SummerSlam (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD as "Future event, not yet notable; WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG"  Chzz  ►  21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the time this AFD has closed (assuming it last at least four days) it will no longer be a future event or violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps that reasoning should be struck? I think GNG can still be applied fairly. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Don't see the point in deleting this when the event will be held in less time than it will likely take the AFD to close. By that time, the sources that cover wrestling figure to have more than enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:CRYSTAL's first exception , which reads "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This event meets both of those criteria. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded When there can be an article on the 2020 Summer Olympics (9 YEARS away), there can be an article on SummerSlam (3 DAYS away). Blocpark (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Umbralcorax.--Dcheagle 03:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient notability established for event that will take place in 3 days. Seems to be a bad faith nomination. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I think it has long been established that Chzz nominates WWE articles because of a personal grudge. AFD will close after event, hence bad faith nomination. Blocpark (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw requested deletion - apologies; I mis-read the date; I didn't realise it was just a few days away.  Chzz  ►  12:27, 11 August 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. Courcelles 00:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cath Long[edit]

Cath Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This person does not appear to meet the notability requirements for inclusion - see WP:GNG and WP:BIO - contested PROD  Chzz  ►  21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:BIO. Topher385 (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:59, 13 August 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} 23:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna Yovanoff[edit]

Brenna Yovanoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This person does not seem to meet the required level of notability for inclusion - see WP:BIO; contested PROD  Chzz  ►  21:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of sources on both Google and Yahoo that support a biography. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Replacement looks like it might be notable, per bestseller status, etc, but there's no sourcing to be found about the author herself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 11 August 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. Suggest a merger discussion be had on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punta Carnero (Ecuador)[edit]

Punta Carnero (Ecuador) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence that this is a notable beach, reads more like promotional material for a beach. Possibly some of it could be merged to Salinas,_Ecuador OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- nothing more than an advertisement. --CliffC (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Commentes.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punta_Carnero_(Ecuador) no body touches the one in spanish that has been up for a long time! donde es posible con nana en english y mucho en espanoL! muchos gracious! CliffC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsairolex (talk • contribs) 22:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Spanish Wikipedia is of not concern or relevance to English Wikipedia; they are entirely independent projects. I've already posted instructions on your talk page regarding how to participate in AfD discussions; please stop posting the text of the article in it's entirety here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentThe Spanish Wikipedia is of not concern or relevance to English Wikipedia; they are entirely independent projects. that makes about as much sense as ,, ahh ... Bonsairolex (talk • the google automatic translator is a new invention and takes a spanish article to an eglish in a second flat!
  • Comment What I'm saying is what happens on other language Wikipedias has absolutely no bearing on English Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It does seem to have significant coverage from independent secondary sources, [1][2] thus passing WP:GNG. Reading more like an advert is a matter of editing, not deleting. --Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both of those are travel guides. It's not surprising that a beach would be listed in a book like that, but I don't think WP:GNG covers every single attraction commonly listed in a travel guide. I've already merged relevant material into Salinas, Ecuador; I'm not seeing why a beach needs it's own article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:RS, travel guides are considered reliable sources for establishing WP:GNG as they are independent of the topic and there is editorial control over their content. You might not like certain types of topics being worthy of coverage, but that is not a basis of deleting articles.--Oakshade (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the word "travel" in WP:RS. I never said I didn't like the article. I originally tried to clean it up, before realizing there was little salvageable and moving what was salvageable to the Salinas article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RS doens't have to say "travel." That's silly game playing. It stipulates that sources independant of the article topic and that has editorial control over its content are considered reliable sources. If you'd like WP:RS to make an exception for anything travel related, you need to make your case on the WP:RS, not invent your own meaning in an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• *Keep -I don't know why you want to delete this page. It has reliable sources (according to the Wikipedia guidelines), it doesn't host content that is in violation of copyright and it's not an original research. As for its notability, I think in this case it's debatable. For me, for example, Sylvan Beach, New York it's also very small and probably not vey important, but I don't think that its page should be deleted. Putting all Punta Carnero's information in Salinas doesn't seem appropriate. It would be like saying that the Sylvan Beach article should be deleted and all the information should go in Verona Beach State Park. It seems to me that this is more a case of not thinking it's important because it's far away in Ecuador. I think that the article needs improvement, but should not be deleted. Aestrella (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsairolex (talkThis is an awesome quote, thanks for the support (someone in the community!! deleted my nice beach photos four times,... thanks a million User :Oakshade who spoke on the 11th of August 2011

National Arbor Day Foundation could be added to the Arbor Day but its seperte because it is, just because Ecuador is in South America gives you no authority to take and move Punta Carnero Beach to another community miles and miles away....Bonsairolex (talk This beach is not in Salinas Ecuador and would be like taking the National Arbor Day Foundation page and moving into the Arbor Day page, but you cant , BECASUE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS; just like Punta Carnero is different from Salinas..

• *Keep Punta Carnero Ecuador South America!!!!!

This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (...this is what sould read on the top of the Punta Carnero Page......National Arbor Day Foundation, exactly what is on this page!...Bonsairolex (talk

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T. Rafael Cimino[edit]

T. Rafael Cimino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I believe this is part of a hoax perpetrated to advance the notability of this individual. It was brought to my attention from the article Mid Ocean (now redirected), which contained a quote from the New York Times. A subsequent search of the New York Times' archives revealed nothing on this book, and nothing on this author.

Statements of notability made in this article and evidence to the contrary:

• According to IMDB, was not a contributing writer/producer for Lost in Translation.[3]
• Not a contributing writer/producer for A Love Song for Bobby Long.[4].
• Not a contributing writer/associate producer for The Other Boleyn Girl.[5]
• Not a contributor to Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.[6]
• Not a writer (or marine director) for Miami Vice.[7]
• "The New York Times described Mid Ocean as 'Miami Vice meets Goodfellas'". As stated above, nothing in the archives to confirm this.
• Cannot find any reliable information on the publisher of his novel Mid Ocean (BMG Publishing Group of Fort Lauderdale), nor any reviews. I also cannot find any reviews for is other ebook, Table 21.

I cannot find any Google hits on this individual that are not primary sources, spam or wikis, and no Gnews hits.

Akula Films appears to be a company of Cimino's own making, with no releases to date.

PendulumPost.com does exist, and he is listed there as a "Founding Member", but the website itself has no established notability.

Statements possibly establishing notability:

• I cannot confirm or refute the claim that Cimino won the APBA Offshore U. S. National Championship in 1982.

Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as BLP violation. Asserted within the article are facts about association with notable films which cannot be properly verified. While yes, he may have written (at least) two books,[8] searches show that these do not have the acclaim that the article asserts. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:ENT. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Fails WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP. While he did author a book [1], he does not pass WP:NN. He was also not involved in any episodes of Miami Vice. Either way - it is certainly not worthy of a WP mention. Srobak (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, assertions are not supported by WP:Reliable sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unable to find verification of the claims, nor any significant results about the subject - frankie (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: According to imdb at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1975915/, there is a movie version of Mid-Ocean in development with a $42 million budget. Interestingly enough, though, the plot of the supposed movie was written by "Andrea M. Cary" , who has no other edits to imdb and seems to be the same as AndiCary (talk · contribs). The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments: 1-There are many reviews of Cimino's books on Amazon, but, amazingly, every single one of the reviewers which I checked out has only ever reviewed Cimino's books (one of them is by Andi Cary). 2-His books are published by "BMG Publishing Group", whose address is 5810 n monroe st bldg 400s; tallahassee,FL 32303, that is a "virtual office". I can't find a website for them anywhere. 3- the akula films website lists Cimino as "the youngest member of the Cimino Family of American film producers". This reminds me of Rikki Lee Travolta. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:52, 12 August 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. G7 does applu. Courcelles 00:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsent Letter (song)[edit]

Unsent Letter (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I created this article after believing it was notable for appearing in a Triple J Hottest 100, but I've since been informed that it is not an acceptable chart on Wikipedia. Lachlanusername (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a G7. Article author/nominator is pretty much the sole contributor to the article, and can request that it be deleted without an AfD. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:48, 11 August 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 deleted - G7. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the monkey[edit]

Paul the monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article about a mascot for a defunct production company. No assertion of notability and no references. An earlier version of the article was speedy deleted and the author has removed the earlier prod notice on this version. Article clearly fails WP:GNG and it seems unlikely it will be possible to reach that standard - I cannot find any reliable references to this mascot. Palltrast (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as promotion. The reason for the creation of this article appears to be to raise awareness for a facebook group. VQuakr (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• please delete. it is a bad artical, and I, the author, have no more use for it. Drlf (talk) 20:56, 10 August 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} 23:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Adamson Chronicle[edit]

The Adamson Chronicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This student newspaper does not appear notable. I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources that discuss the newspaper itself. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, student publications tend not to be notable and this is no exception. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficient details--Skylarkzoe (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't see third-party sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 16 August 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. Courcelles 19:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn-Florida football rivalry[edit]

Auburn-Florida football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. I think it should be deleted or merged. Nathan2055^{talk - review} 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could certainly use some serious reformatting to make it cleaner and easier to read, but the content is certainly notable enough for inclusion. The rivalry was only strengthened and has become more notable in recent years due to the transfer of quarterback Cam Newton from Florida to Auburn, where he won a national championship. Jeick (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does need updating, and I am in the process of doing that. I have already added a year-by-year game history and intend to make additional contributions/editions in the near future to increase the quality of the article. If there are any specific areas of concern I am interested in hearing them. The Auburn-Florida rivalry is a long and important one, like the Iron Bowl (Alabama-Auburn) and the Cocktail Party (Florida-Georgia), and like those rivalries, it deserves it's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgessner (talk • contribs) 08:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs all sorts of work, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject game's inherent notability per WP:N. A simple search of Google News Archive starting in October 1912 reveals an amazing wealth of news coverage of this recurring rivalry game [9] (well over 700 separate news articles found in GNA alone). I'm afraid that this AfD nomination is more indicative of the nominating editor's inexperience than the actual notability of the article's subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per all reasons stated above by Jeick, Rgessner, and Dirtlawyer1. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cleanup is an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:33, 17 August 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 - simple case of non-notable organisation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seabreeze Youth Orchestra of Huntington Beach[edit]

Seabreeze Youth Orchestra of Huntington Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The topic of this article seems to lack any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Jsharpminor (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, serious WP:COI (username blocked), reads like and advertisement. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:03, 10 August 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. Courcelles 19:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cavottish[edit]

Cavottish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Yet another in an infinite series of dog breed crosses. No references in reliable sources, contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for obvious reasons -- no reliable source coverage Anna (talk) 02:53, 11 August 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. Courcelles 19:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wind advisory[edit]

Wind advisory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Redirect declined twice. Not separately notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I plan on fixing it up soon to match other articles that are part of the list of severe weather terminology in the U.S. It's notable on its own, it just doesn't appear to be the way the creator has written the article. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. IT needs to be expanded/fixed. How is this non-notable. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added references and fixed up the definition. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep/Snowball Keep per both above comments and obvious notability. I doubt anyone in the US is going to deny the notability of Wind Advisories, being that they are one of the most common NWS alerts.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Keeping skies bright ^{Chat Me Up} 03:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that this can be closed on basis of WP:SNOW --DeVerm (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, this meteorlogic warning looks like just a normal warning. What's notable about it? - Nabla (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you kidding me? They are inherently notable. All other watches/warnings have all articles at this time, though this can always change. WP currently has an article for Tropical Storm Erick (2007) which is also weather related, something much less notable than this article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No... Are you? - Nabla (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not kidding either. All types of weather warnings are inherently notable. These are often mentioned in WP:TROP articles and could be wikilinked to. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so. I am absolutely surprised that a "it will be sunny", or "it will be windy", or... whatever weather forecast is notable. Weather warning systems, are probably notable; but individual warning messages? Hardly more than a line in the warning system article... - Nabla (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Nabla's benefit, I'm including the navbox at the bottom of this discussion for anyone who would question that individual alert varieties are included.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looks like we have articles for "sunny forecast in the USA", "rain forecast in the USA", etc.. As I see it, it is excessive detail. But I also admit some of them are reasonably well written, for a nearly non-subject articlke. PS: And though not a good reason, yes, there are excessive details far worse than this one around - Nabla (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment - I really don't see how describing these articles as "sunny forecast in the USA" is really being helpful to the AfD (if anything, it devalues your !vote by implying that you're over-simplifying what the articels actually say), and comes across as condescending. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

«A Wind Advisory is generally issued [...] when there are sustained winds of 25–39 miles per hour [...]» and... that's about it. There is a warning if there is wind. It is simply that, it is not me simplifying. I understand you may have another viewpoint, and as such 'read' me as disrespectful. It is not my intention at all, and I may understand you. It is probably about the same feeling of surprise as I had when I stumbled upon this and I read comments that this weather warning is "inherently notable" and a "snowball keep". It will probably stay, given I was the only voice joining the nominator. But it certainly is not a "snowball keep". BTW, and being constructive: 1) the 'parent' article is quite fine; 2) may this become more than the current sentence plus a few trivialities? It does happen that one thinks something is unimportant out of his (mine) ignorance - and I do not know everything, that's for sure. Maybe this is the case? But the current article has nothing really, and should be deleted/redirected. - Nabla (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing "Snowball Keep" with "Speedy Keep". "Speedy Keep" would mean that this was not even being given discussion. "Snowball Keep" means that there is virtually or entirely no chance of deletion. In other words, "Snowball Keep" closes early due to an overwhelming consensus. so far !votes are 1-5 or 2-5 if you count the nom. That means that greater than twice the number of people want to keep it as delete it/more than two thirds/>67%. The idea is not that we would close without forming consensus like you would in a "speedy keep", but that we would close early because there is already an overwhelming consensus. Additionally, This is not a forecast of wind. Rather, it is the statement that strong wind has been forecast and is a problem. A forecast of wind would be something like

where as a wind advisory would be more like

Hopefully this helped.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 05:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, snowball keep doesn't apply here. 1) It's an essay, not a guideline/policy. 2) With one out of 5 !votes being a delete, there's obviously objection to keeping it. The best course of action here is to let the AfD run its course. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course; but that only changed after the first Delete !vote came, so it's kinda funny to !vote Delete which invalidates snowball and then state that snowball isn't valid. I can't hardly follow my own reasoning anymore so I better stop :-) --DeVerm (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Was that a typo when you said it was an essay? Main-space article. Also, read WP:SNOW with closer detail. The Guideline/policy thing goes with WP:CSK, not SNOW.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 16:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW is an essay. WP:CSK is a guideline. But none of the speedy keep criterion are met. It's best to just let the AfD run it's course and not close it early. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok I misunderstood. I though you were referring to Wind Advisory as an essay and saying WP:CSK only protects guidelines. WP:SNOW has been used to close deletion discussions in either method in the past. This meets the "criteria for snowball keep" being that it does not "have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted [for deletion]"^[1] The essay may not be a guideline or policy, but it has been used in the past to keep/delete/merge/whatever else things before. It really doesn't matter too much, being that it will be kept either way, it just saves some time.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  ^{Chat Me Up} 00:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not voted delete because it is not a snowball keep. It is not a snowball keep *IMO* because I would obviously vote delete. Confusing? May be a little.... but I hope you got it. A weather report, wind or strong wind, or whatever is not article-worth notable in any way I can see or have been shown here. It is certainly notable as a short reference as there is in the (rather nice, I say) article about nomenclature. - Nabla (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about a single weather event, it is about a type of weather report. Nabla, Do you think WP:METEO (a semi-inactive project) needs to rethink about notability criteria. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about WP:METEO's criteria. If it says this is notable, then I'd say the criteria are too low - Nabla (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this would be inherently notable, just like all hurricane seasons are. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - virtually every personal and economic activity is severe-weather-dependent, thus this is inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a regular NOAA term, frequently used. Also there is a strong precedent as demonstrated by Bowser423 MadCow257 (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

refs[edit]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 19:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity Tiles[edit]

Velocity Tiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and original research. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article gives me no clue as to what these tiles are, How-to guide / spam, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - none of the refs provided have reliable 3rd party coverage; they are instead setup/user guides. This article was created by an SPA, and is possibly spam/promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing encyclopedic in a manual page. W Nowicki (talk) 17:20, 13 August 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. Courcelles 19:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macurious[edit]

Macurious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company. Joe Chill (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with nominator. There is no coverage, and I can't find any either. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notable coverage on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unreferenced; no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 13:07, 13 August 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. Courcelles 19:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Bhutan[edit]

Railway stations in Bhutan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are no railway stations in Bhutan. bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, do I really need to say anything else? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only reference from 2009 says a railway from India to Bhutan and Nepal is "planned". Article can be recreated once we have solid references stating it is approved and under construction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It looks like my deletionist and inclusionist friends above are in agreement on this... I'm still looking forward to that Native snakes of Hawaii article. Carrite (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deletionist? Inclusionist? I used the AfD analysis tool developed by User:Snottywong to take a look at my most recent 250 AfD recommendations. I recommended "Delete" 49.2% of the time and "Keep" 45.4% of the time. I recommended "Redirect" 4.6% of the time. My recommendations matched consensus 86.7% of the time, didn't match consensus 6.2% of the time, and there was no consensus 7.1% of the time. Please note that I am usually among the first to comment, because I am not interested in hopping on bandwagons, plus I often edit on a smart phone that chokes on lengthy debates. So am I a deletionist or an inclusionist? As for Native snakes of Hawaii, my recommendation is the same as for Beach resorts of Bhutan. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey, cool toy! I'm an inclusionist (even got hauled to ANI over my Utterly Out of Control and Thoroughly Disruptive Inclusionism </sarc>) and my numbers are 44.5% Keep and 51.4% Delete... Yep, you're an inclusionist, all right, Cullen. Mr. Hammer is 7.3% Keep and 89.9% Delete. So, I'm not gonna retract a word of the above. Slick work, Mr. Snotty... Technology is swell. Carrite (talk) 04:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have also started an AfD on Railway stations in Kuwait. bobrayner (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although we don't have a Native snakes in Hawaii, this is a classic Snakes in Iceland problem here; don't exist, probably won't given the geography of that country. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 12 August 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. Courcelles 19:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newbridge Yachts[edit]

Newbridge Yachts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable company. Joe Chill (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:GNG. It also reads a bit like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. Topher385 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I didn't see any notable third-party sources on Google and Yahoo aside from Yellowpages and other listings. I guess we know where to yacht now? Ha. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 11 August 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. Courcelles 19:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tax Club[edit]

The Tax Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looks notable at first glance, but pretty much all the sources are either listings, passing mentions, self-published (i.e. YouTube), or minor human interest stories about the fact that the company President offered the pilot of a crashed plane a ticket to Obama's inauguration. Creator has a COI. Previously deleted at AfD, sources added do not look to be sufficient. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advert for a non-notable company. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per G11, spam masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't agree with G11 deletion because it's not overly promotional, to the point of being unfixable. But I concur with the nomination, the coverage is nowhere near enough to satisfy our notability requirements. There's a long list of citations to sources that are either unreliable or barely mention the company. -- Atama頭 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the above that it's not close enough to previous versions to speedy, but the sources are far too weak to support an article. EyeSerene^talk 11:47, 11 August 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. Courcelles 19:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason 4[edit]

The Reason 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

While this article does contain a claim of notability (having appeared on a television show), this band doesn't appear to meet the WP:BAND notability criteria for inclusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable per WP:BAND, borderline WP:SPAM, from what I can find online in WP:Reliable sources nothing significant happened to the band after coming in 5th on X Factor per WP:ONEEVENT. Gurt Posh (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RS, WP:INDY, WP:BAND, WP:TOOSOON. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:45, 14 August 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 G11. -- Atama頭 18:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McGuiness[edit]

Mike McGuiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable. Only source mentioning him in more than a passing way is self-published. Redirect to company may be possible, but deletion appears the way to go. Creator has COI issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - per G11, spam masquerading as an article. Otherwise, delete as failing WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 10 August 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 My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. Courcelles 19:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: The Wonderbolts[edit]

My Little Pony: The Wonderbolts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The page is about a group of minor characters (they don't have official names, all names on here are fan made) about a cartoon (though a good cartoon). There is no way this could be incorporated into the main article, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge whatever relevant information into List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#Minor Characters ...eh, or better yet, just start a new subsection and ditch what looks like a child's scribblings in this current article. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Way to encourage the next generation of contributors... 109.153.233.36 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 10:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete so poorly written that nothing needs to be merged. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Minor characters, no 3rd-party sourcing, no real world notability. We're not a fansite for Bronies, nuke this stuff from high orbit. Tarc (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nuke it from high orbit? That's a very NPOV you got there. 121.209.96.112 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#Minor Characters. Also, WP:DONTBITE the newcomers. Rangoondispenser (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters#Minor Characters - to be fair, at least two of them are officially named, Soarin' and Spitfire are named in the "Best Night Ever" episode... They are recurring characters, however there isn't enough for them to merit a standalone article. (I'm no Bro, and therefore not a Brony :P )MorganaFiolett (talk) 15:49, 11 August 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 Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Courcelles 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Bradley[edit]

Archie Bradley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable amateur baseball player. PROD contested by IP. All coverage appears WP:ROUTINE. He's a first round pick with no claims of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BASE/N. Being a first round pick does not make one notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players Perhaps not notable enough to have a standalone article, but being a 2011 first round draft pick should warrant a section in the D'Backs minor league article. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you change that to delete if he doesn't sign by the deadline? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly would've made this AFD less of a clusterfuck had it been nominated after the deadline, no? As it stands, I can't vote to delete at this time.
      • I nominated it when I saw it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a bit tricky.. I would say wait to see if he signs, if he does then merge.. if he doesn't then delete. Spanneraol (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He isnt notable yet.--Yankees10 02:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, he did sign. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Alex (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. There is sourced info worth keeping, but not notable enough for a standalone article. —Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 17 August 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. Courcelles 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawke's Bay & East Coast Aero Club[edit]

Hawke's Bay & East Coast Aero Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. A search for references by several editors did not turn up sufficient to show WP:N. Discussed at WikiProject Aircraft and consensus was to delete it. Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; seems to be non-notable. bobrayner (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Alexf^(talk) 18:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; I can't find more than passing references, such as obituraries in local media along the lines of "so-and-so local identity was a member of Hawke's Bay & East Coast Aero Club" or "Joe Bloggs learned to fly at Hawke's Bay & East Coast Aero Club". YSSYguy (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article I created, I did not realise how non-noticable this organisation was until now. Sorry. -- User:SnakeEyes^(talk) 19:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no need to be sorry, your creation of the article was in good faith, but reviewing articles for notability is just part of the regular process of building the encyclopedia! - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 17 August 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 Mass redirect to List of Star Wars books#Fate of the Jedi. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of the Jedi[edit]

Fate of the Jedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article covers a book series named "Fate of the Jedi". Series does not appear to meet WP notability guidelines from WP:NBOOK. Google references are mostly blogs. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At most, it should be merged/redirected to List of Star Wars books#Fate of the Jedi. That should have been attempted through normal editing before coming to AFD. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 10 August 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. Courcelles 19:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reid G. Sheftall[edit]

Reid G. Sheftall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be an autobiography written by the article subject. Relies mainly on primary sources with only a couple of references from strictly local media. Kelly ^hi! 13:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not known enough. Also the fact that the article has his weight proves that it is written by himself unless he goes to a fitness club and his instructor is a big enough fan to make a Wikipedia article on him Naomib1996 (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of general notability based on inadequate coverage. Many of the sources are local publications or from his almae matres—not ideal as third-party. A search of WSJ gives no hits on the last name. The books appear to be vanity press: I only found one other book by "CandleLight Books" and it may have been a duplicate name. An Amazon.com name search is used as a reference four times.Novangelis (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity page, as explained above. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. This polymath appears to have made little or no impact on the world of physics. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - I, Greg Regan, am the author of this article and not the subject, Dr. Sheftall. I have prepared the article based on my own internet research and local knowledge being a resident here in Phnom Penh, Cambodia since 2001. The ex-pat community is very close-knit so I had heard about Dr. Sheftall’s charity work from others before actually meeting him. I have met Dr. Sheftall on a handful of occasions as a patient. Two of those meetings lasted a few hours: the first a couple of years ago when Dr. Sheftall accompanied my mother to Bangkok for a bile duct operation and earlier this year when he surgically removed a lump from my back. This gave us time to talk and learn more about him. I have seen Sheftall’s Tour Card, the Most Valuable Surgery Resident Award and the 99th percentile certificates. Notability is justified on becoming a professional golfer at age 48 which is a feat in itself, especially when you consider the sub-standard golfing facilities here in Cambodia and the fact that Sheftall was (and still is) running his full-time clinic AND doing free reconstructive plastic surgery for acid-burn victims.

Let me just respond to some of the points raised in this discussion so far...

“the fact that the article has his weight proves that it is written by himself”. Actually, I didn’t personally weigh Dr. Sheftall. I found this information here…(http://www.asianseniormasters.com/playerprofile.asp?sortby=NationalityDesc&PlayerID=491). I didn’t reference it as I looked at the model for other professional golfers and noted that their height and weight was not referenced. The fact the article has his height and weight could indicate, as evidence (not proof), that the article was written by Dr. Sheftall. Proof and evidence are two very different things.

“Many of the sources are local publications” All publications are local. The Wall Street Journal is local as is the The New York Times.

“...or from his almae matres” Technical Review is the world's leading authority on technological innovation. It doesn’t specifically focus on the exploits of MIT alumni.

“This polymath appears to have made little or no impact on the world of physics” Fair enough comment but Dr. Sheftall did teach physics at U.S.C. at age 21 which is very unusual. In any case, I am not evaluating notability on only one point.

“A search of WSJ gives no hits on the last name.” That seems to be an issue with the WSJ’s search engine. You can find the WSJ article that mentions Dr. Sheftall here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574517892268554388.html). The point of the article is that it is extremely difficult to turn pro-golfer even if you have the time, facilities and resources. Dr. Sheftall achieved pro-status nevertheless with little time to practice and with access to only mediocre facilities.

Also, in line with Wiki deletion guidelines, I'd request that contributors refrain from using the word "vanity". --Aaregg (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)— Aaregg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. Websites, such as the one you furnish are ephemeral and not routinely considered to be acceptable sources (though there are some very strained exceptions). The WSJ article you mention is an example of a "trivial mention": It's a few sentences that say that Sheftall founded a charity clinic and plays professional golf in Malaysia. It would probably be a clincher if the article were about him per se rather than being about the phenomenon of older adults playing golf. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as per Novangelis and nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:41, 17 August 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} 15:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youtab (electronics)[edit]

Youtab (electronics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There is no evidence of notability of this at all. The only source cited is a paper by the inventor of the idea, and I have been unable to find any third party coverage. The author of this article appears to have a conflict of interest. (PROD contested by author without any reason given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: a novel idea for designing of analog signal isolators, which works based on optical coupling, is going to be proposed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The community has established a high bar for notability with respect to articles on individual products, and this does not come close. VQuakr (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is about something that "is going to be proposed".  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:24, 10 August 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. Most of the arguments to keep are invalid as they have no basis in Wikipedia policy. Lack of sources which establish notability is the reason for the vast majority of deletions through this process and is therefore a perfectly valid argument to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UnrealIRCd[edit]

UnrealIRCd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable software. No actual notability demonstrated in previous AfDs. Joe Chill (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unnotable piece of software, fails WP:NSOFT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion opposed[edit]

• Keep Reason #1: you are never going to get notable sources for daemons. Yet the entire internet runs on countless daemons.
• Keep Reason #2: it's not a bad article. There was a substantial new release of it last month - July 2011.
• Keep Reason #3: last but not least, this is Cobi's article. If Cobi, with literally millions of anti-vandalism edits can't have an article on a topic in which he has expert opinion, then what hope is there for any of us?

I refer you to the Wikipedia Chairman's call for clemency and editor encouragement of May 2011.

Go on, "Be Nice" - please lend a hand. Wikipedia Chairman appeals for kindness,here, discussed here. Are you in? Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 23:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reason #3 is terrible and not worthy of consideration whatsoever. Just because I have expert knowledge on Charybdis does not make it worthy to be kept. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "you are never going to get notable sources for daemons." My point exactly. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how are you going to list daemon's in the encyclopedia? Just because no-one wants to write an article on sendmail in The New Yorker, does that mean the transmission method of 90% of the world's email is not part of the "sum of human knowledge"?

I think any deletion of the article should only be allowed to go ahead with a valid proposal, and work done, to fix all the redlinks that would be created, and that work done prior to deletion. Over 250 redlinks >> Special:WhatLinksHere/UnrealIRCd<< Just my 2cents worth. I don't have any vested interest in the article or conflict of interest. Geoffjw1978 ^{T L C} 01:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NSOFT#Inclusion

“	The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.	”
— WP:NSOFT#Inclusion

and reference #2

“	One of the most popular and full-featured ircds is Unreal.	”
— Mutton, Paul, O'Reilly

-- Cobi^(t|c|b) 11:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If this software doesn't meet the criteria for notability then I think alot of the pages for FOSS would not either. I strongly oppose notability as sufficient reason to delete this page. It is established and notable in its type. MadCow257 (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NSOFT is not an actual guideline. Being established and notable in its type does not equal Wikipedia notability. Joe Chill (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG, as multiple sources of high quality, such as " IRC Hacks: 100 Industrial-Strength Tips & Tools" (an O'Reilly book, can't get more RS than that), say it is a leader in its sector. Have the "delete" even bothered to read the sources?.--Cerejota (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are these multiple sources? Your keep is based on one source. Joe Chill (talk) 11:23, 18 August 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. Courcelles 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Takeover EP[edit]

The Takeover EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Possible non-notable album - merge into artist's article? EyeSerene^talk 11:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:NALBUMS. I don't see that merging it with the artist's article would enhance it in any significant way. Topher385 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even the recording artist has had his article tagged for notability since June 2010, and Allmusic has nothing on him save a discographic listing of this one EP. And while the artist's article at least makes a claim of notability, the EP's article does not.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:29, 17 August 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) Cerejota (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mixxx[edit]

Mixxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The prod was contested by an IP. Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a well known open source DJing application: covered on OMGUbuntu (and again), PC Advisor, Best Buy UK website, and there was a paper at New Interfaces for Musical Expression in 2003. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mixxx is virtually ubiquitous in news articles about Linux audio production, and very widely discussed in articles about free audio software for Windows, and it reaching the #1 download position for free programs (in any category) through the Mac App Store, according to MusicRadar Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix well if you want to keep it around, add those independent sources to the article. Blogs are not the most reliable sources, but enough of them (especially ones by professional journalists etc.) would help. W Nowicki (talk) 18:13, 11 August 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} 15:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icky's Ego[edit]

Icky's Ego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable band, their video won one minor award for cinematography, no reliable sources found to satisfy the criteria of WP:BAND Jezhotwells (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable group, does not satisfy WP:BAND and failed citations and blog references are not sufficient to show any notability.Teapotgeorge^Talk 10:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not fulfil WP:BAND. Most of the sources are not reliable. I am afraid the idea that they will one day be big is insufficient, as per WP:CRYSTAL. If they ever do get big the article can always be re-created.--SabreBD (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 10 August 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. Courcelles 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Technology Evaluation Center[edit]

World Technology Evaluation Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

advert for a company sourced by the companies own website and links to shops. not independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:CORP duffbeerforme (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to fail WP:CORP. It also reads a bit like an advertisement. Topher385 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 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. Ironholds (talk) 05:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Dunn[edit]

Hailey Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

(Same as Haleigh Cummings‎ article listed below) Standard missing person case, one of tens of thousands worldwide. No individual notability about this case. Article added by the same single purpose user. Some potentially libelous statements. NPOV. Dmol (talk)

• • Question Why would anything claimed in this article be considered potentially libelous if what is written is just paraphrased from what one read in news articles? I thought the whole idea of citing references protects such statements that may appear libelous? Am I wrong? Allycat1208 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • This case is a Texas case, not Florida. The Hailegh Cummings case is a Florida case. Allycat1208 (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't think an account should be labelled as a Single Purpose Account when they edit many different missing persons articles. Some seem enthralled with Missing white woman syndrome, so much that they've absorbed a ton of information from other news sources not found on Wikipedia. It' like saying if I did nothing but edit baseball articles, I'd be a single purpose account as well. I have no vote since I don't know the guidelines that decides what makes a missing girl notable, but here's the Google News results Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 11:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the reason events of an arrest and developments overall. Hailey Dunn gets 3 830 000 hits on google too.. so coverage has been made to a good extent.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google News Archive brings up 54 articles, a very low amount. Laladoodle92 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How many hits for a topic from google news archive is enough to be deemed important? Allycat1208 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were up to me, I would say 1000+ articles. However, I have seen cases pass their aFD with less than 1000 articles, but much more than 54. This case has not received massive media coverage, it did not inspire any new laws, there have been no TV specials/documentaries or movies made it, no books written, etc. Laladoodle92 (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plenty of Google hits, this is notable. The other problems with the article may be solved by being bold and editing it, but they are not valid criteria for deletion. Roodog2k (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - That 'single-purpose' editor, Allycat1208, referenced by nom above, creates and edits articles on murdered and missing children. I'll take that bit of argument for deletion by assuming good faith and say that I don't think there is anything wrong with being a single-purpose editor on Wikipedia.Roodog2k (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've put a notice about this article on the BLP noticeboard, suggesting that the entire "Investigation" section is tainted with unproven accusations against various people suspected of having a role in Hailey Dunn's disappearance and presumed murder, and proposing that this entire section should be thoroughly removed. The fact that these claims may have been made in newspapers does not (per my understanding of WP:BLP) make it OK to repeat the allegations. Note that even though Hailey Dunn may be dead (and thus the article itself is not a BLP), the BLP policy still applies to statements made in the article regarding living people. As for whether the article itself belongs, I am inclined to !vote to delete per WP:VICTIM — and if the article is deleted, it should be revdel'ed or oversighted out of concern for the material in the "Investigation" section. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:VICTIM and per nom. Google News has very few hits - I count 13, though YMMV. I see no points of notability and very great WP:BLP risk for others named in the article.
• Delete. Per editor just above me. This kind of event is always going to receive significant coverage for a time. We can't have articles about all of them. See WP:NOTNEWS.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom etc. Sadly, cases like this are rarely of great long-term significance, except to those involved. And yes, there were serious issues with the 'investigation' section too. I think the article creator should familiarise him/herself with core WP:BLP policy before writing any more articles on similar topics - this type of article (even if meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines) needs a great deal of care to avoid implications that are unjustified, and negative portrayal of individuals that have had no part in the case itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VICTIM and WP:NOTNEWS. These are tragic events, but such tragic events happen every day and are reported every day in reliable news sources. This does not usually render the victims notable. In the case of WP:EVENTS, I think persistence in sources is key. For the sake of the subject, let's hope we're dealing with BLP here. BusterD (talk) 03:09, 19 August 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. Courcelles 19:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CINeSPACE[edit]

CINeSPACE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

former EU project, homepage 404, no claim of notability, no independent references, name clash with entertainment venues makes it hard to find content on google. fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable. Joe Chill (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did manage to locate one informative text on this project/device, by someone in one of the associated bodies who did appreciate that writing is meant to communicate: Jennifer Armitage's article in the now defunct Scottish Screen's "Rough Cuts" newsletter. That indicates that the device is/was essentially an updated View-Master+GPS. That information could be used to improve the article were it to survive AfD. But it does feel that Notability needs demonstration of relevance beyond the project itself. AllyD (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax created by a blocked editor. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euperipatoides kanangrensis kanangrensis[edit]

Euperipatoides kanangrensis kanangrensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Possible hoax. I am unable to verify that this subspecies exists or existed. VQuakr (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the article creator has a history of disruptive edits, including the remarkably similar and speedily deleted Euperipatoides kanangrensis kanangrensis kanangrensis, I'm inclined to assume this is another hoax, and am speedy tagging it accordingly. Yunshui (talk) 07:26, 10 August 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 Goalball. Courcelles 19:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaalball[edit]

Gaalball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not for made-up things. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This probably could have been PROD'd, but it's cool. After doing a search, results did not show anything remotely consistent with the article (what a surprise!). The term apparently refers to something in Spanish, but it definitely isn't what the current page is about. No coverage in independent sources. I wish there was a speedy delete for pages like this. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Made-up sport. IgnorantArmies^?! 09:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Goalball. The "something in Spanish" referred to by Jethro appears to be a misspelling of Goalball. Given that (at least for Spanish speakers) Gaalball appears to be a somewhat plausible misspelling, the best solution may be to redirect.  --Lambiam 12:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goalball Good catch, Lambiam. I'm striking my support for deletion in favor a redirect. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to goalball. It might be wise to preemptively protect the redirect, but I guess this is typically frowned upon. LadyofShalott 02:26, 15 August 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 without prejudice toward recreation if actual sources are used. While I think there is a valid point to be made that older labor leaders were important figures in their time and our coverage of them is spotty at best, there is no consensus/policy/guideline that they are automatically notable. Therefore the WP:GNG is the bar, and without a single source attached to this article it fails that standard. Will gladly userfy if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Crowell[edit]

Russell Crowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG. So few hits of any kind, even on Gbooks, that Google autocorrects to "Russell Crowe". Article creator (who is retired) openly admitted COI. Only two inbound links, minimal edits since 2009. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of notable sources that could aid in a biography, as I didn't see any on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete A search for sources doesn't turn up ideal coverage:

• A memorial page for Crowell, although it was created by a family member. Definitely not independent.
• Crowell is mentioned as a speaker here and here, but there's not any other content about him.
• Crowell's reelection as president to the Laundry and Dry Cleaning Union is mentioned in this newspaper and here, but there still isn't much beyond this.
• This news article is the best I could find, as it has a bit more content of Crowell commenting on a proposition directed at dry cleaning facilities.
• Newspaper article shows Crowell as the chair of a courtroom hearing against a local union unit, but still not great coverage.

What we've got here that's verifiable is an article about a guy who was president of a labor union, was reelected, commented on some legislation, and was an invited speaker at some labor conferences. I'll keep an eye out if anyone else finds anything, but while these sources are usable, they just aren't enough for WP:BIO of this individual. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia is extremely weak on pre-Internet-era labor union leaders. The president of an AFL-CIO international union ought to be considered per se notable. Google does not really convey the prominence and power of such individuals in the 1930s through the 1960s. Kestenbaum (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying "to hell with this sources thing"? Gee, I wish all BLP articles were like that. Not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• He may be making an argument similar to the one at WP:POLITICIAN-- that because he was elected (and re-elected) to an international position, he is therefore notable. However, I'm not convinced he should be considered under this criteria, as he's not running for an "office" in the sense that a labor union is an interest group. Furthermore, do not outright dismiss the coverage of Google Books and Scholar, which I checked thoroughly. They contain books from several national libraries listed here. If you can find additional sources, list them here, or better yet, improve the article and let us know. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[the following comment moved here from my talk page. Kestenbaum (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]

• You're arguing WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE, which are weightless arguments. There's no such thing as "per se notable". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I've been away from WP discussions for a while, so pardon my lack of proper form, and back off on the ridicule.

• I certainly remember seeing the phrase "per se notable" used in biographical notability discussions in the past, for example, as to members of national or state legislatures. I was NOT saying "to hell with sources," but rather (as laid out specifically in I-forget-which WP notability policy) noting that people whose prominence predated the Internet are not necessarily fairly represented in a Google search. Yes, that problem is slowly going away with the development of Google Books and Scholar and like resources, but that doesn't mean it's gone.
• Today, labor unions have sunk into irrelevance, and may seem like a trivial "interest group", a subset of one faction of one political party. However, I admit to being old enough to remember the 1960s and 1970s, when a much larger portion of the nation's workforce was unionized, and labor leaders were household names, receiving frequent and detailed coverage in the media, editorial cartoons, radio and newspaper interviews, etc. Labor union scandals received as much attention as scandals involving members of Congress today. The AFL-CIO (the presidents of its 40 or 50 member unions) was a body of tremendous political power in both parties, as were its two separate predecessor entities.
• Terminology note: "international union" doesn't mean that it draws its significance from crossing national boundaries, since usually the only other country is Canada. Rather, the structure of any large U.S. or Canadian labor union consists of "locals", which are usually numbered and may be quite small, and the "international," which determines policy and structure for all of them, and may have (or had, in the old days) hundreds of thousands of members. The AFL-CIO is a federation of such "international unions".
• I had never heard of Crowell before this discussion. Still, labor history is a WP weakness (see, e.g., the brief little article about a major figure like George Meany), and I didn't like seeing the reflexive dismissal of the significance of a union leader. Kestenbaum (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Filibustering and saying WP:ILIKEIT helps you not in the least. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahem, this is not about "me".
• I have also been looking for other sources, and I admit that I have come up short. The only reference the New York Times has "russell crowell" was from March 22, 1965, which listed him among "many notables" who participated with Martin Luther King, Jr. on a civil rights march. If he was notable enough to be mentioned there, why aren't there ANY other mentions, not even an obituary? Do we have his name wrong? (But "russ crowell" and "russel crowell" don't yield any other hits.) I'm baffled, but I concede the point on this deletion. Maybe the union he headed was never very large. Kestenbaum (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You've got it backwards. His notability is dependent on how many sources there are to be found, not vice versa. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - reading the arguments above, I think they make the valid point that union leaders, while historically relevant, may suffer from Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Basically some shitty Myspace band with a bunch of online reviews and an iTunes album has the qualifications of "enough online sources," but a guy who may have had great impact on regional history, and may be very relevant to people interested in Union history, gets shortchanged cuz he got old before the internet appeared. (Not all union leaders are notable, of course, but if even a portion of the details on his Wiki page can be validated, I'd argue he is). Doesn't change the fact that the page really needs to be cleaned up and the few sources that do exist need to be added in. If after a cleanup, it's apparent that he was either some sort of fraud, or all of the historically relevant facts appear to be original research (i.e. there's basically nothing left), I'd say delete. (awaiting sarcastic comment from otters) Sloggerbum (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Sloggerbum. First this is not a BLP. Second, anyone who knows anything about union history on the USA knows who this is. Third, sources must not be online sources or news sources, they can be books. Google books reveals plenty of opportunities for sourcing, and indeed notability. I do not think that GNG requires that the sources be contemporary or have the ubiquitousness of contemporary media, that is indeed Systemic Bias towards contemporary rather than historical figures. I say we keep tag for improvement, and eventually a labor historian will get to it. --Cerejota (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Burden of proof's on you. If you THINK sources exist, that's not enough. You have to PROVE they're there. Don't be dumb. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No refs at the start of the afd and none now. Looks a bit like a copyvio too, but where it came from who knows. Szzuk (talk) 11:12, 18 August 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. Courcelles 19:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Sanchez[edit]

Mercedes Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not pass the notability guidelines. I could find no reliable sources about Mercedes Sanchez as the "blogger, producer, fashion and beauty expert". --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 04:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The subject does not appear to meet the GNG, and the local blogging award does not alone indicate adequate notability for inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every mention I could find in reliable sources about someone named Mercedes Sanchez turned out to be about entirely different people. This person does not seem notable to me, based on Google News Archive and Google Books searches.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable blogger with a non-notable blog. Joe Chill (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet GNG. However, Mercedes Sanchez is a common name. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete When I search 'Mercedes Sanchez blogger' I find legitimate stories, articles and blog posts that demonstrate this blogger's influence. She is a notable Latina Blogger. Take a look at the references from Advertising Age, Mashable.com and AOL Latino.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancyalex (talk • contribs)

Delete - I didn't see notable sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 17 August 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.