< 13 February	15 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by JamesBWatson. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anil rana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Anil rana

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

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhood Voice Party[edit]

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

local party with local notability; fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails notability guidelines; no significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 01:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. This is a local community paper that provides a brief mention as part of local election coverage. That's all I found. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The below comment was left at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Neighborhood Voice Party. I have moved it here as this is the appropriate discussion venue. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elmwood Park is a town of 24,000 people and has two major political parties, one of which is the Neighborhood Voice Party. It is no surprise that the only reference to the party is in the Elm Leaves / Pioneer Press -- the village's weekly local paper -- as the town is small and not of major relevance to major media outlets. The Elm Leaves is the village's only local paper and contains at least three articles on each party.

The Neighborhood Voice Party is a registered political party which can be verified through the Illinois State Board of Elections.

This page should not be deleted because it contains factual, verifiable information of historical, political and local interest; however, the page can be edited to remove references to improper categories (such as "Major Political Party"). I will remove such references if it is decided that the page should not be slated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattyW18 (talk • contribs)

Comment - I have removed material from the article as it did not adhere to a neutral point of vierw and was a borderline attack on political opponents. (See this edit by me: [1]). As for notability, WP:ORG would seem to apply in this case, and per WP:ORG#Primary criteria's discussion audience, I don't see how this rises beyond strictly local coverage. "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the article creator brought up "local interest": per Whpq's citation of WP:ORG#Primary criteria above: "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Article creator has already stated that he believes that things that go on in Elmwood Park are "not of major relevance to major media outlets". Not only is this entity not notable, I'm not sure it could ever become notable without some more notable external event affecting it. This "party", by definition, can never have more than 7 candidates, the maximum size of a village board under Illinois state law. I'm having almost no success finding anything about this party even being "a registered political party which can be verified through the Illinois State Board of Elections". I'm having trouble seeing any indication the ISBE even tracks organized "parties" other than the Democrats, Republicans, and Greens. There is a "Committee to Elect Neighborhood Voice Party" (political committee ID number 23093) — maybe that's what the article creator meant by "registered political party". This committee has only existed for 3 months. Someone seems to have an exaggerated idea of what sort of thing is of historical interest. (Presumably, the state of Illinois has at least 23,902 other committees so far. That's almost as many committees in Illinois as Elmwood Park has residents.) Also, this committee's Form D-1 Statement of Organization says that it is a "political party committee" but its political party affiliation is "Independent" but its purpose is "To support candidacy of Neighborhood Voice Party candidates for Trustee in Elmwood Park". Probably some legal reason for why it is filled out that way. --Closeapple (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Neighborhood Voice Party have exactly zero citations in Google News. Their opponents, the United Party of Elmwood Park, have 1. Anarchangel (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Stoll[edit]

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

Self-promotion; fails WP:ENT Noiraygeb (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails notability guidelines, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It would seemt hjat her most notable role is that of Sadie in a web series. There is no significant coverage about her to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 15 February 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 snow delete. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Titanic II (proposed ocean liner)[edit]

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

no assertion of notability. A mockup and design created by a private citizen, the coverage of the vessel itself seems to come exclusively from youtube and amateur sites. Ironholds (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely speculative, no independent sources to establish notability Kuguar03 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a perfect fit for WP:MADEUP. Someone designed a ship in a simulation program, and put it on the internet. That does not make for a Wikipedia article. gnfnrf (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - Additional citations added, include an October 2009 Harland and Wolff Heavy Industries Limited "Preliminary Proposal Project Feasibility and Execution Study for a new built liner." This citation is now added to the article. Mariepr (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out how that document is relevant to the discussion. First, it seems to be about a completely different proposed ship, the SS Titan, and not the RMS Titanic II. Second, it is not a third-party reliable source. If I am misunderstanding something, please let me know. gnfnrf (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I rather doubt it could ever be called "RMS" since the Royal Mail doesn't use ocean liners to ship mail anymore. Per previous deletion discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMS Olympic III, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Titan (2012), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMS Titan , this ship proposal isn't notable either. Perhaps a note should be added to Olympic class ocean liner about the multiple efforts to relaunch various Olympics (Titanic and Olympic mostly). 64.229.101.183 (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources would appear to fail WP:RS, and a search for better ones only gave me this reference to the unrelated Replica Titanic. Fails WP:GNG by a long way. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. —Diiscool (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to the creation of an article on the ship at some point in the future when a contract is signed and the keel is laid. Until then, this is in breach of WP:CRYSTAL and fails WP:GNG as there are no independent 3rd party sources. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Titan (2012) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMS Titan. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brick GO(D/T) Me[edit]

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

Not notable, independent film with absolutely no third-party coverage. WP:NF and WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 22:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While not doubting this short film exists (it can be found online), it has not been covered in any sort of media. Lacking coverage, it fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reviews or awards. Abductive (reasoning) 06:07, 21 February 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 Mandsford 02:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Nelson[edit]

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

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

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

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

There's been quite an edit war over this biography lately, driving the subject, User:RussNelson, to start removing content out of frustration at the interpretation of Wikipedia's editing rules by User:Toddst1 and others. He also applied a prod tag, which is inappropriate as the deletion is not uncontroversial. Whether other editors view this as the subject seriously wanting this bio deleted or not - which can influence the decision of the closing admin - I leave to them. It's clear that we need to assess the notability of this biography, and that won't be accomplished at AN/I, where this is now featured, and it won't be accomplished via edit warring. I am bringing this here because I believe we need to properly assess whether this biography meets inclusion guidelines, not because I have an opinion that it must be deleted. Fences&Windows 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially the entire claim that Russ Nelson is notable rests on his having been president of OSI for ~~about five minutes~~ about a month, and that can be adequately covered in one sentence in the Open Source Initiative article. There's no need for an article on this individual, and certainly no need for the current dispute. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of the wishes of the subject, the head of a major organization like this is notable. He would be notable regardless of his having resigned, or the reason for it. The extent to which the material about is resignation should be emphasized is subject to the usual BLP rules. In this case, it seems somewhat relevant, so it should be included. At present, it occupies too large a proportion of the article, but the solution is to add other material. (As a completely uninvolved party, I have made an edit to the article to diminish that emphasis). DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - founding open source member and at one point head, why are we being rude to people like this, its totally unnecessary and like shooting ourselves in the head. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the deletionists that my article (which is a convenient shorthand for "the article about me" not intending to indicate ownership) should be deleted. I've been written about in other places which I cannot find online. For example, my software, the Clarkson Packet Driver Collection, received an award from PC Magazine in 1991. I have a copy of the magazine, but I can't find anything online. There's an interview of me by Dr. Bernie Aboba in his early online publication, The Internaut. My software was at one point running on every McDonald's cash register (for which I have no published reference, but it contributes to my notability if not notoriety.) The reason I went through and deleted things is because I anticipated that eventually Mrs. Toddst1 would find my citations suspect, and delete them, just as she had already started deleting things. Eventually, once everything which is not perfectly cited has been deleted, there is no article left. Unfortunately, you can probably do this with about 70% of all articles on Wikipedia. I do not think that this improves Wikipedia, and I do not think Wikipedia would be better off without me. (And, Gavia immer -- it was a month, not five minutes, Accuracy counts.) --RussNelson (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "about five minutes" comment was not meant to be read literally, but since you object I have adjusted it. For what it's worth, my opinion about whether we should have an article on you is not an opinion about you personally - I haven't got one of those. Part of my reason for having the opinion that I do is that you shouldn't have to deal with the sort of disputation on your article that has already occurred. I don't like to see us causing that sort of stress when there is (with my apologies for the phrasing) not much for us say in your article if it stays within policy. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reference in a 1991 issue of PC Magazine is a valid one, and should be added to the article. References do not have to be online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, given the importance of the position and the off-line references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Presidency of Open Source Initiative and subsequent resignation under pressure gets the subject over the notability bar from my perspective. A pretty terrible article that needs a great deal of work, as it sits, but it looks to be a case of "improve, don't delete." Carrite (talk) 18:58, 15 February 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 Music in psychological operations. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hadsell[edit]

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. Has not been improved since June 2010. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect - Article is well cited, however the event which the Sergeant was quoted about was not about him as a primary subject; therefore, any relevant and referenced information should be redirected to an appropriate article such as Psychological_warfare#United_States, Psychological Operations (United States) or Operation Iraqi Freedom. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possible merge) almost all the cites come from one notable event and that is his comment on how to break the will of people through the use heavy metal music. The same information is now in Music in psychological operations#Instances_of_use. Should this information be moved or merged with the articles RightCowLeftCoast has pointed out? IQinn (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not notable. V7-sport (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not notable? Did you read my and RightCowLeftCoast comment? There are obviously some notable information to preserve. Do you have any opinion what target article would be the most appropriate for this information? IQinn (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I agree with IQuinn that the material does not justify a separate article; and also that his role was significant enough that a merge & redirect is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music in psychological operations. Yet another instance where the individual is not notable in an of himself, but has had some impact on a notable event. His oft-quoted statement would be best at the target article, and a redirect there is cheap and might be a reasonable search term. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bahamut. Anotherclown (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- (1) Hadsell is not a ((blp1e)), as he was involved in several events. (2) Not only was Hadsell widely quoted at the time, but he continues to be quoted over half a dozen years later. (3) Many commentators quote Amnesty International, and state or imply that Hadsell's interrogation techniques were torture. Geo Swan (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that looks to me exactly what ((blp1e)) is all about. Not only that he is only known for this comment it is already in Music in psychological operations#Instances_of_use. That some have also commented on his comment does not give him notability either. You see his notability established as being a commentator or under what category WP:PEOPLE? I personally think a redirect to the information about his comments (that many have agreed on are notable) is more than satisfactory and additional information can be merged to the place where they belong and where they can be brought into context. IQinn (talk) 09:25, 22 February 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 already speedily deleted by another admin per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Narimizadeh. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Narimizadeh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Autobiography of an Iranian Sound Engineer. The article only links to his homepage, studio page, imdb page, and a directory listing. My Google searches show only listings in some film credits, but no third party reliable sources as required by WP:N. Zachlipton (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I see now that we already did this in last month's discussion. Tagged for for speedy deletion as a recreation of a previously AfD'd article. Zachlipton (talk) 21:47, 14 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle County Charter Academy[edit]

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

school that in no way demonstrates any sort of outside notability Yaksar (let's chat) 21:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fits nicely into three exiting categories: Charter schools in Colorado, Elementary schools in Colorado, and Middle schools in Colorado. I'm in the process of fixing the references and adding more. Really not sure in what way the project would be served by the deletion of this article. 97 mentions in google news, plenty of sources to pick from. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand you have issues with the notability requirement in general, and that's perfectly reasonable. However, arguments such as "it can't hurt" or "deleting this doesn't improve the project" don't particularly help much with the discussion. I nominated this because a) it had no outside sources describing anything and b) there was certainly nothing presented to distinguish it from every other charter or elementary school in the world. If this notability can't be established, it can't meet the requirements.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

97 mentions in google news. Consistently the highest-rated elementary and middle school in the district. I'll be adding more information. Moreover, short of dogmatism, what do you hope to accomplish by removing the article? To rephrase the question, what's wrong with having an article on this, or any other elementary school? It's not promotional, it's informative, and it coalesces disparate chunks of information into one place. Seems like a fine candidate for a Wikipedia article. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Throwaway85. 97 news references sounds notable to me. The notability guidelines are to aid us. They are not a straitjacket. Keep.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number doesn't as much as what they're about. None of them make this school any more notable than the thousands of other elementary schools (and before anyone mentions it, a school being ranked as "excellent" in the district is not equivalent to winning an honor or award.)--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a rule against elementary schools. It's been proposed, and rejected, over and over again. The community-accepted standard is at WP:ORG, and 97 news articles generally clears that bar quite nicely, as it actually only requires two (at least one of which must not be a small-town newspaper that prints a story about every single thing in town). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Per WP:ORG#Primary_criteria, the sources that are abundantly available appear kosher. Many of the articles are on the school district as a whole, mentioning ECCA specifically (usually for academic achievement), and a few are on ECCA itself (it's difficult status within the district, state grant for new field, etc). Throwaway85 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there is nothing in here to distinguish the school as any more notable than every other school in the US. Class size, academic performance, etc. can are informative and should be in this article, but they don't make it notable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I must be missing something, but doesn't the notability "guideline" refer to the extent and significance of coverage? Your comment seems to me, and perhaps I'm misreading you, to suggest that the problem is not the coverage, but the quality of the school being somehow ordinary and thus not worthy of note. Tkotc (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually. You'll notice that there are points made distinguishing trivial and routine coverage from actual coverage. Also check out WP:SOURCESEARCH.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I helped write this article, and I believe that it should stay. I know that my friends at the school like having an article about their school somewhere.Mountain Girl 77 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per our standard procedure for primary and middle schools. Just because your friends like the idea, it's not a reason for having an article in Wikipia is not a reason.Kudpung (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From your link: "Exceptions to this are when a school article of any level does, or can be shown to clearly have the potential of meeting the notability guideline". It's already been established that this article easily clears GNG due to the preponderance of secondary sources. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does the essay at WP:WPSCH/AG overrule the policy at WP:GNG? I doubt it. bobrayner (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Seems to be more substantial coverage than most schools - although I would point out that some of the sources are ones which list all schools in a particular area - such a source merely establishes that the school exists, not that it's notable. bobrayner (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Among those 87 (not 97) Google links to newspaper articles there appear to be very few that are all independently and regularly reporting the same notable features. It would be fairer to us here, to be presented with the exact links to the precise newspaper reports of the kind that confirm an established, exceptional reputation for the school. The vast majority of the reports are the same run-of-the-mill column fillers that every grade school gets in its local newspapers. A preponderance of secondary sources on a miscellany of trivia does not alone add up to notability. Kudpung (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while merge is a form of keep, my !vote above should be taken as opposition to a merge.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, you still appear to think that notability, on Wikipedia, means something that it does not. I suggest you re-read WP:GNG. The existence of quality sources is the only criteria for iclusion. Those sources exist, as I have already demonstrated. Whether or not you think the subject is uninteresting, or that it doesn't stand out, is irrelevant. It is, furthermore, a red herring, as notability in the common parlance has no bearing on a subject's suitability for inclusion. From the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." This is unequivocal. We may argue over the quality and quantity of sources, but not over this. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the article and not on the editors. The sources are a total miscellany of tidbits that almost every run-of-the-mill school regularly gets in its local newspaper(s). Kudpung (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not commenting on you as an editor, I'm saying that your understanding of notability, as it applies on Wikipedia, is flawed. I'm commenting on your argument that the school is non-notable because it's like every other school. The fact is, sufficient sources exist to write an informative, if brief, encyclopedic article. I've added some references, and will further expand the article after the AfD. Deleting this article serves no purpose and is counter to our policies and principles; maintaining and expanding it will help grow the project. This is what we do. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to the town of Wolcott, Colorado as usually done with run-of-the-mill elementary/middle schools. Here's a good example of why a simple count of Google News hits is not a valid argument for notability: The vast majority of those hits are from the Vail Daily, a free hyperlocal paper with a claimed circulation of just 15,000. OF COURSE such a paper is going to write about the local schools; they have to fill their pages somehow. To be notable there would have to be at least something from, say, the Denver Post. I found two passing mentions in the Rocky Mountain News; otherwise all those hits are just filler to pad out the pages of a tiny free local paper. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Run-of-the-mill" isn't an argument against inclusion, but the quality of sources is. I recall coming across a few Dever Post articles when I was adding references; I'll endeavour to find them again. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't? Please see WP:Run-of-the-mill: "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from all the rest. In other words, something or someone that is "run-of-the-mill" is probably not notable." Yes, please do look for references in better quality sources, and remember we need to see SIGNIFICANT coverage - not just passing mentions. I admire your tenacity in trying to save this article and I am open to changing my mind if significant coverage can be found, but I am skeptical that it exists. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay, not policy. I can start WP:No-articles-starting-with-'A', but that doesn't mean it has any bearing on an AfD. GNG is clear; a subject's notability for the purposes of inclusion are determined solely by the number and quality of sources on it. I'll take a look for better ones after House ;)Throwaway85 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not official policy, but "it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article." It's not just something somebody made up one day. The fact that it exists here as an essay, and has for several years, should give you some idea of what consensus thinking has historically been about run-of-the-mill things and institutions. That historic consensus is what you are up against here. The burden is on you to show that this school is not "run-of-the-mlll," but something more. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an awfully weak straw to grasp at. When was the last time we deleted an essay around here? Longevity does not equal value, it just means it is not so irrelevant that a MFD was in order. I think Throwaway85 for sure has had the better of this discussion and this should close as "keep" or at worst, "no consensus".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Throwaway85 has "had the better of this discussion" based on what? Volume? After all, more than a third of all the comments here are from him/her. But he/she is still struggling to come up with any significant coverage from reliable sources (as opposed to the huge count of citations from a hyperlocal free paper). If significant coverage in reliable sources cannot be found, the school is not notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then with all due respect, I suggest we read NG again.Kudpung (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the requirement for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, is there something in GNG you feel is pertinent, perhaps from WP:NOT? I'm looking for more/better sources. If I can't find them, I'll accept the AfD as it lies, although I still maintain the sources available are fine for an informative, if small, article. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Denver Post articles, here and here. Unfortunately they're behind paywalls, so I can't see the content, but they're on the success of charter schools and mention ECCA explicitly. They also have quotes from ECCA officials. I'll try some useragent magic to see if I can bypass the paywall. There's another DP article here, but the link appears to be broken. I'll see if I can find another way to the article. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visits from Olympians: ESPN, Edmonton Sun Throwaway85 (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the same article, word for word - in two different publications. Still, it's nice that some Olympic skiers visited the school and got national/international coverage for doing so. As for the Denver Post stories, from what I can see they are mentions, not "significant coverage" of the school itself. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fantastic, nigh-on unbelievable feat of penmanship, given that the ESPN article is three times as long as the one in the Edmonton Sun. The article in the sun is a subset of the ESPN article, so it should be ignored. "Significant coverage" need not be contained within a single source. It's perfectly acceptable to have it spread over, say, 90 sources. Regardless, the Vail Daily is a reliable secondary source by the standards we have set as a community. If you'd like to argue that it fails based on readership, then so too would the Principia Mathematica. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources giving minor or trivial coverage definitely does equal any sort of significant coverage. And guest speakers speaking at a school does not transfer notability, no matter how famous. Hell, they could take a job there and it wouldn't necessarily make the school notable. Remember, notability is not inherited.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another essay, not policy. Regardless, I agree that the mere fact that an Olympic skier dropped by doesn't make a subject notable, but the preponderance of sources does. There's more than enough to write a good article on the subject, which is all we require. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, they're both just small mentions, one in an article about charter schools in general, and the other in a list of 10 schools honored for high attendance and academic performance (something which, for a school that's not a high school, doesn't mean so much)--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And hell, even the president visiting a school doesn't make it notable, let alone an athlete.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however, does. Anyway, the Denver Post articles are no longer hosted on that site, but a paywalled news storage site. Useragent tomfoolery would probably get me access, but I'd need the url of an article on that site to do so, and I don't have a credit card with which to buy access. I wouldn't be opposed to paying for the articles themselves, but it's a moot point. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant being the key word. Not passing or trivial.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the 50-60 Vail Daily articles on the school itself, we have interviews with school officials in the DP, articles in international papers on Olympian visits, all the stats and personnel info we need to fill in the infobox... I'm having trouble ascertaining where your opposition to having this article lies, outside of it being an elementary school. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Wolcott, Colorado. Elementary schools are usually not notable. This one has a local award, still not notable. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program, a national award, might be enough, but even then the article must have more to say than can be filled out in the fields of the infobox. Wikipedia is not a directory. Abductive (reasoning) 06:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't appear to fit into any of the categories listed at WP:NOT#DIR. Care to elaborate? Throwaway85 (talk) 07:29, 22 February 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 The Comedians (novel) Mandsford 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Trianon[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional hotel, may be appropriate to be merged either to the book or the hotel page Sadads (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Would be fine as a subsection of The Comedians (novel) but it's clearly not a stand-alone topic. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the novel, which can reference the actual hotel upon which it is based. Jclemens (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, nothing sourced to merge. A redirect wouldn't hurt either. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in quite a few books and articles on the hotel and on Greene's works. RS cite added. [2] from the NYT should buttress the fictional hotel's notability. [3] specifically states: Holding forth each morning over breakfast at the Hotel Oloffson, the 19th-century gingerbread concoction of turrets and terraces that is the scene of much of Mr. Greene's novel (under the name Hotel Trianon), Aubelin Jolicoeur, the longtime journalist and ascot-wearing dandy who was the model for the novel's gadfly and informer, Petit Pierre, still delights in recalling the author and his impact. [4] also notes the connection. Seems quite sufficiently notable if it has multiple NYT mentions, to be sure. Collect (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both of those citations seem more appropriate for the Hotel Oloffson article than they do for this. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is thus not RS sources - which clearly exist, but whether the RS sources making specific comments about the fictional hotel establish notability for the fictional hotel. When in any doubt, I would err on the side of accepting that sufficient notability exists. Collect (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect. No secondary sources analyse the fictional hotel. They merely mention that it was a thinly-disguised version of a real hotel. Heck, the Overlook Hotel from The Shining is a redirect, and it might even have some good sources. Abductive (reasoning) 06:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect for lack of significant coverage to WP:verify notability. Sources barely mention the hotel in the context of focusing on other topics. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and redirect to Waldorf Astoria Hotels and Resorts as reasonable search term for one of its hotels. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 22 February 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 Nomination was an accident and has been withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 MWC men's basketball season[edit]

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

~Araignee (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally tagged this whilst learning Twinkle...this should NOT be deleted.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 deletion requested by author JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hatfield[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Youth footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level yet. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 20:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 20:09, 14 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frenetic (programming language)[edit]

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

Lacks evidence of notability. Created inappropriately for WP:POINT Glaucus (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NOTE --169.237.10.137 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not privy to the business of the harassment, but I can see some distinctly odd editing, and an article that's about something with no indication of notability shown. And indeed stated so in its creation, which lends credence to the allegation of WP:POINT, unless I'm missing something. As to the language, I couldn't say. I could write in BASIC, but could make COBOL sit up and beg. (The good old days when silica chunks were set upright in the ground...) I can't even work out what this is supposed to be for. I can see that it's not referenced and from (and possibly including) its creation it's been a problem. I could be wrong (which proves I don't program any more...). Peridon (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep following work by Cybercobra. I still feel it is understandable by someone who knows what it is to start with, but that's not a deletion ground. Peridon (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just tweaked the formatting and added the infobox based on info already in the article. I didn't add anything substantive. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harassment? WP:PAPER rst (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in edit summary at the article's history. Peridon (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creation and nomination both WP:POINTy. But anyway, given that the subject is a programming language, I'm inclined to forgo the WP:GNG. Since the language has a published conference paper, I recommend Keep. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any exemption from the general notability guideline for individual models and designs of tools used in other trades, so why for those used by computer programmers? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG doesn't always work well with software (see e.g. the similar window manager deletion controversy); programming languages are a type of software. Generally, the most important issue is the need to prevent spam / utter-trivia articles; requiring a nontrivial user base or publication in a solid journal seems sufficient to avoid this. I wouldn't oppose a merge, it's just that I don't see an obvious recipient candidate article. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your argument still doesn't go beyond special pleading. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think the analogy really works, a programming language is not just another model or design of tool like a spanner, anymore than french is just another model or design of latin. a programming language is just that, a language. -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i agree with Cybercobra -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no good reason to exempt programming languages from the general notability guideline. There are hundreds, and probably thousands of programming languages that are invented, named, and mentioned once or twice. If they don't have substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Unless the Voellmy–Hudak paper has substantial content – I don't have access to it – this one needs to go. People who are interested in programming languages really like this content, but it should be transwikied to a big Compendium of Programming Languages on Wikibooks, or a programming languages wiki that isn't burdened by Wikipedia's standards for notability or verifiability. --Pnm (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...burdened by Wikipedia's standards... That's very well put, although it probably means different things to you than to me. rst (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That ... "programming language" ? even got no any description on off site and added here by the same person who wanted to remove from wiki some really good PLs like Nemerle etc , the Christopher Monsanto. So just read the reasons to delete This language from :Articles_for_deletion/Nemerle. The only different is that Nemerle is notable and this odd job is NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.242.245.41 (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For info, Christopher Monsanto did not create the Frenetic page. rst (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows ) he is most "notable" of it's authors. Maybe he nominated pages for deletion to post "this" odd job. That is my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.242.245.41 (talk) 06:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Robert Fisher[edit]

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

This is an unsourced BLP that fails to show how the subject meets WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no supported claims of notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject's record appears to be mostly amateur rather than professional, and his professional record does not seem to be notable. Janggeom (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find independent sources that show he's notable. Papaursa (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacko Turunen[edit]

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

Article about a living person, a singer in a band that has not released any material, neither played any show. Obviously, there is no article about the band. Furthermore, the article contains a lot of external links and features a link to the person's entry on Wiktionary. Not notable. Maimai009 18:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No plausible claim of significance. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I agree that there is no plausible claim to notability, and search for sources turns up nothing that would be considered reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! audition process[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable aspect of the show. Poorly sourced over-coverage of a minor part of the show that is already well covered in the main article. Ridernyc (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This actually appears to be the fourth AFD for this article; the actual first one is located here.
Delete—This article is an exmaple of the FAQ section of WP:IINFO. This is not a notable subject and no more notable than any other audition process of television game shows. The argument that this article exists merely because the parent article is too long is ridiculous. Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)#Audition process, a section in a similarly-structured article, concisely details the audition process in a paragraph. What is currently included in Jeopardy! audition process is a whole lot of rambling and not much encyclopedic information. There are already two separate sections that detail information about the same topic, Jeopardy! audition process#Historical practices and Jeopardy! audition process#Auditions in the Art Fleming era. This entire article can easily be concicely and accurately described in a paragraph or two (with appropriate references) and merged back into the main article...which has already been done. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely notable topic with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:N). Numerous news articles written about the Jeopardy! audition process are published every year, and numerous sources can be found by searching Google/Google News for related keywords (although the above links are not as helpful since they search on "process" in addition to the other terms). At least four published books have been written substantially covering the audition process (Dupée, Forrest & Lowenthal, Jennings, Harris), and several others cover it in detail (e.g., Fleming, Eisenberg, Trebek). Sotto's conception of WP:IINFO is wrongly expansive to anything he doesn't like. This article is not a "plot-only description of fictional works", a "lyrics database", an "excessive listing of statistics", a "news report", a "who's who", a "FAQ", or a "catalogue". Nor is it in any fashion indiscriminate by any definition of the term. In sum, a clear keep as meeting notability. Robert K S (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. At least seven independent, reliable book sources devote substantial (chapter-length or more) discussions to this specific topic. 271828182 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you are referring to I assume are sources covering Jeopardy, simply because these books also cover the audition process is not an indication of independent notability. Ridernyc (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is the 4th AFD where we are told over and over again repeatedly about numerousness sources that cover the audition process, yet this article is severely lacking in sources. The article right now has a total of 6 sources. One source is a message board, another is a dead link to the Jeopardy site. Of the rest of the sources only one seems to be about the audition process, the rest are covering Jeopardy as a whole, one seems to not even be covering Jeopardy and is covering game shows in general. For 4 years now and 4 AFD's we have been told over and over again about sourcing, yet there still seem to very few sources and as far as I can tell not one source establishes this topic as notable independent of Jeopardy. Ridernyc (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response And this is the 4th AfD with absolutely no prima facie validity. Besides the 7 books I mentioned which cover the audition process (I note now that I also talked about them in the first AfD), there are over a hundred news articles that cover the Jeopardy! audition process every year. How do I know this? I read them all. Sometimes they are written by the contestants themselves, who happen to have careers in journalism. Sometimes they are written by journalists who just want to get on the show, or are assigned to report on the "Jeopardy! is coming to town" story, or are assigned to interview contestants as local interest pieces after receiving word from Jeopardy! that contestants from the journalist's area will be featured on the show. Brain Bus events (RIP) and campus recruiting events attract especial media attention. Here are news stories that are fresh, covering contestants that have only just appeared recently or are about to appear: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Here are some from the Brain Bus era: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Some are merely perfunctory notices. Many are now behind paywalls. But the sheer volume and diversity of the reporting is more than sufficient to evidence "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is the basic requirement for notability to sustain a separate article on a topic. With this basic criterion more than satisfied by all the books and news articles, I should think it would be up to a party in favor of deletion to establish with evidence that virtually all of these sources should be discounted by virtue of unreliability or for some other reason, and I should also think that such evidence would have to be voluminous. Robert K S (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no longer unreferenced sections. Sources have been expanded, dead links refreshed, citations needed, supplied. In answer to the charge that we could describe this in a paragraph, I put it to you that we should expand 'Wheel of Fortune audition process' into an article in preference to slapping tags on things and deleting them when they already include details that cannot fit in summary paragraphs. Anarchangel (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability (doesn't say what he is "chief editor" of; also WP:AUTO. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid jatoi (chief editor)[edit]

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

Very short, badly written, unsourced article about a living person. No explanation why this person is notable enough to be included in this encyclopedia. Maimai009 18:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wet weather driving[edit]

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

Nothing more than a how-to guide to driving in the wet; non-notable subject. ukexpat (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. I'd add WP:STATINGTHEBLOODYOBVIOUS as well if it existed. "When it is raining, the windshield and other windows may quickly fog up, obscuring the driver’s vision. Window defoggers can eliminate the problem." Defoggers remove fog? Amazing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable topic. Some parts of it resemble an instruction manual, but these can be rewritten (or removed if not relevant). Peter E. James (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the non-notable rationale. The how-to part has mostly been cleaned up (I now regret the work I put into it).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winter weather driving is distinct and different from wet weather driving. The article conflates the two. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If rewritten, I think it could take one of two directions. Either discuss the effects of weather conditions on vehicle handling, or discuss how people actually drive in bad weather, and the kind of accidents this causes and so on. Either of those approaches would probably warrant a different title (or being a section of another article), so I've no opposition to deleting Wet weather driving.M0ffx (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "How To"-ness still not removed, and it probably can't be. WikiBooks is a good home for this material. Abductive (reasoning) 06:18, 21 February 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, tending towards keep. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kreindler & Kreindler LLP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kreindler & Kreindler LLP

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

Non-notable small law firm, article appears to be promotional to boot. -- Y not? 17:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Article was evidently started by this dude and expanded by aviation lawyer (talk · contribs) - it's clearly spam. -- Y not? 16:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it fails my standards for notability of attorneys. They are just doing their jobs for their clients, which is their fiduciary duty and to be blunt, run of the mill. The article fails general notability, and their one really big case was news in 2003. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been rescued. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks :-)--Korruski^Talk 16:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the risk of making an "I've heard of it" argument, these guys really were the best-known aviation attorneys. There are quite a few articles from reliable sources to support that.[26] See, e.g., "A Pioneer in Air-Crash Lawsuits Files for Families in TWA Tragedy", Daily News, 1996[27]; "Kreindler, who literally wrote the book, Aviation and Accident Law", Miami Herald, 1988[28]; Kreindler is "founder of air disaster law", NY Times, 2003[29]; "Lee Kreindler, Seen as Founder of Air Disaster Law", Newsday, 2003[30], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are making an argument that Kreindler himself is notable, though I think it's pretty marginal. The firm is NN regardless, and besides the article is pretty spammy. -- Y not? 16:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The law firm was the lead attorneys in the Lockerbie case, but also the TWA 800 litigation, the Swissair 111 case, the American 587 case and virtually all other aviation cases. The firm is currently involved in the Colgan Air Flight 3407 case. I think the information is factual and not overly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviation Litigator (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aviation Litigator, you should please familiarize yourself with our conflicts of interest policies. -- Y not? 16:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources available [31], [32] and [33]. Although clearly the article has failed to cite these or other wp:Reliable sources, it is possible to do so. That said, user:Aviation Litigator needs to carefully observe wp:COI. Signification of that user's willingness to comply with that policy might well begin with ~~striking through~~ of their above !vote. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -per nom. FieldMarine (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be worth the above two editors reading WP:PERNOM. Given that the nomination consists only of an assertion of non-notability, a pernom !vote is particularly unhelpful.--Korruski^Talk 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added one of the sources LeadSongDog mentioned, as well as one I found. Although the article needs a lot of improvement, there is a certain amount of independent coverage from reliable sources, and the claim that Kreindler effectively founded air disaster litigation and that the firm has acted for the plaintiffs in almost every major air disaster of the last 50 years certainly point to notability. Given that, I am landing just on the side of keep.--Korruski^Talk 11:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further sources, including one that shows that they won an award for their work on the Lockerbie case. I do not see how the firms work can be described as 'run of the mill'.--Korruski^Talk 11:45, 16 February 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 speedily deleted per criterion g11 spam -- Y not? 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reverend Dr. Raponzil L. Drake[edit]

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

Minor government official; insufficient notability for WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, unsourced BLP. Hairhorn (talk) 17:16, 14 February 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 redirect by nominator. I just now found Dhikr, which is clearly a better article on this topic.Scientizzle 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhakir[edit]

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

This page is essentially a dictionary definition that lacks proper sourcing. Furthermore, the article is little more than a WP:COATRACK for Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and the competing groups that claim to be his true followers. Now, the term is appears to be at least used as a name in Arabic, but I can't find anything that makes it fit as an encyclopdic topic. — Scientizzle 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —— Scientizzle 15:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ——

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be userfied on request (at WP:REFUND or my talk). Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Dream[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Movie made by someone without an article here, and doesn't have any notable actors. Also unsourced, and most likely a vanity page (it appears unrelated to the Canadian Dream page that was AfDed before). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious advertisement for non-notable, possibly non-existent film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
Delete supposed movie not on IMDB. Possible hoax / WP:MADEUP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the prod as it didn't sound like the prodder had followed wp:Before. I looked at the previously deleted article to see if a G4 was merited and it is indeed a completely different subject of the same name. I've googled this and found the production company, so I doubt it is a hoax but I didn't find anything I could add as a reference. Unless someone has access to whatever magazines cover upcoming and new films then I suppose it had better go (I've made a limited attempt at sourcing, but only really enough to establish it is neither a hoax nor hugely notable). Ϣere SpielChequers 22:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did check- not as thoroughly as I usually do before PRODding something due to my painfully slow connection at the time, but I did check the usual IMDB-type sources- and I came up with nothing more than you did, hence my initial PROD and now the AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it was the prod rationale of "Movie made by someone without an article" that left me jumping to conclusions. If you'd prodded it with a rationale such as "I haven't been able to source it" then I wouldn't have intervened. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that; I was in a bit of a rush IRL and I didn't think it all the way through. My bad. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to prod this myself after (a) indef-blocking the article's creator, (b) not finding a suitable CSD category, and (c) not finding online coverage that would meet WP:N criteria. To me, this seemed like an obvious speedy deletion candidate but we have no CSD criteria for creative works. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While is appears the film may exist,[34] it has no verifiability or coverage in RS and thus fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC) (struck my delete, as we have an editor willing to do some work on it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.})[reply]

Userfy without prejudice to :User:Anarchangel/Canadian Dream for work in userspace. Current article has problems in format and lack of sources. I am willing to assist in improving it for a return to mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stop, please. Your assessments have all been incorrect; the correct thing would be to strike, retract, or change your vote. Google Search immediately reveals this to be widely covered. Strangely, there is much more information available about the film and its producer than its director. So in this respect, the nomination's basis is understandable, if not correct. However, the film is the actual subject of the article, and it most certainly has received wide attention. The producer is a veteran Bollywood figure who entered the industry as a composer of film scores.

Motion Picture Association of America Trailer

http://www.punjabiportal.com/articles/dil-punjabi-canadian-dream-punjabi-film

http://entertainment.webshots.com/photo/2759421540027244596VkPLfJ

http://www.fest21.com/en/video/babu_kishans_canadian_dream_a_crossover_film_based_on_true_story_of_new_immigrants

http://punjabilikes.com/?p=13962

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alROQqcC7q8 Babu Kishan's name is expected to sell the film to the Indian audience targetted by this video release, more than slick action sequences shown in the MPAA trailer

Interview with Babu Kishan, also a cite for the film:

http://www.washingtonbanglaradio.com/content/11790811-interview-babu-kishan-krishnendu-das-baul-folk-singer-composer-producer-writer-dire

This is just a drop in the ocean. There are many more citations out there for both film and producer.

Anarchangel (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I used "Canadian Dream film" as a search term to get these Google search results Anarchangel (talk) 19:22, 20 February 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. Liberty to merge if desired. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greenshirts (G.I. Joe)[edit]

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

Largely WP:OR and plot summary; citations merely verify appearance, and do nothing to assert real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really a characxter, just a generic term for the unnamed extra background sodiers. Unsurprisingly, "sourced" to comic books. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, many greenshirts are named. Lots42 (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prominent plot point in Joe comics and cartoons. Lots42 (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lots42, or merge to G.I. Joe (comics)#Devil's Due Publishing. BOZ (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per BOZ. OR is a content issue, not a reason for deletion. If we need more sources, here is one for starters. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kadaver[edit]

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

Tagged with multiple issues for almost a year, this "article" is esentially a poetically-sounding advert without much encyclopedic content. A quick internet search revealed no credible sources about the project apart from a couple of reviews in non-reliable-looking webzines. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable independent sources are furnished covering this one-man musical project in depth. I couldn't find any. Perhaps in Hebrew? Cullen328 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Indeed, as written it's probably an A7/speedy delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:38, 15 February 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 Mandsford 02:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amir of Bimlipatnam[edit]

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

Delete. Original research, not clearly notable. 'Visakha Museum, Visakhapatnam, India is a "source" but I don't know if a museum can be called a source Ingadres (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see this being of any interest outside the family itself. I'm not sure about the 2nd class knighthood. There are two sorts of knights in the UK - knights bachelor and knights of a chivalric order. The first are styled as (example) Sir Jonas Dunderfoot, and the others are styled as Sir Stewartby Phillygrass, KK (where he is a Knight of the Order of the Kitchen - lower than the Order of the Bath in precedence and totally fictional). Both sorts are knights and I've never heard of a second class called that. There are precedence matters between the various orders, but those do not come into the title. Apart from that, I'm not sure about "The magistrate legacy was hereditary hence the heirs were all ruling prince of the zamindari estate." I can't see why a hereditary magistrate should necessarily be a prince. The jagirdar was a grant of land not exceeding the lifetime of the holder, and a zamindar might be in one or two cases referred to by a princely title, but he was in reality a taxgatherer who collected from the peasants and paid tax to the Empire administration. All in all, this looks like a vanity piece on behalf of the current 'Nawab', who is, of course, no longer even a taxgatherer, the zamindar title and position having been abolished across most if not all of India. The present nawab appears to be somewhat of what my mother used to call a 'permanent student', but if he can afford it, I don't blame him. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peridon. Fails WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - several different Google searches reveal nothing but cruft, blogs, and vanity pages, or nothing at all, or nothing otherwise verifiable. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yekta Ibrahimoğlu[edit]

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

Contested PROD; non-notable player who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Canadian Soccer League is not fully pro. He therefore fails WP:NSPORT. There is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. The Canadian Soccer League is not the top professional level. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jalil (detainee)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. Apart from one paragraph on the website of a historian specialized in Guantanamo (repeating some statements from government documents), there are no reliable independent sources about this person. His lack of name also makes it impossible to do a decent search for further sources. Fram (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antiobjects[edit]

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

Almost orphan page, linked only by AgentSheets and originally created by user Dragentsheets. Only two substantial edits from someone else: one from User:Ozten, the other from a French academic IP adding a link to a paper published by French scholars. Also, the original antiobjects paper has seven citations, and Google (Books, Scholar) references to Antiobject(s) almost invariably refer to something completely different (certainly not computer science. --bala^biot 12:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Non-notable neologism about a computational metaphor useful to conceptualize and solve hard problems by swapping computational foreground and background; your guess is good as mine. The term has been coined independently and used in several contexts, mostly having to do with antimatter, but its meaning is fairly obvious or trivial in that context, and this is apparently original research about a programming philosophy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A programming philosophy which does not appear to have gained traction. Coverage in relaible sources, particularly Google Scholar appears rather thin. Most of the google scholar hits on antiobjects are about physics rather than computing and are about a different concept. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 7 citations, most of which are the authors citing themselves. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 deletion requested by author of only substantial content. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Wood (military writer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. A fair number of articles by her could be found: however, not a single source about here seems to be available to indicate that she is notable. Journalists are not deemed notable because of the number of articles they have written, nor by the quality or impact of those, but only because of the attention the journalist has received. Fram (talk) 12:28, 14 February 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. m.o.p 08:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Dear Sweet Heart[edit]

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

Non-notable book self-published through lulu at £211.21 (claims to have sold 1067). Infobox claims publication by Oxford University Press and Bantam Books. Other than unreliable entry at openlibrary.com, I can find no evidence for this. Peridon (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgot to say this is a disputed prod. And I apologise to all for nominating this title on the 14th of February... Peridon (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Highly probable hoax. None of the infobox information checks out, and clicking on the OCLC number (which submits a search to WorldCat) pulls up a record for Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. This earlier revision indicates a pretty bogus book cover. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US ISBN in the infobox is also for Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about the varying numbers of pages - "2 (UK hardback)" and "489 (U.S. paperback)" - and the peculiar and excessive price at lulu. It is definitely listed at lulu but I won't try to put the link in - I get in trouble with bots when I try to link to lulu (they don't like her for some reason). Something of this title by an author of the name here is published at lulu - but at £221.21 for a 7 page pdf download, I can't see 1067 people buying it. (If they have, I'm in the wrong business. Lulu, here I come...) The Dewey code is same as da Vinci, but that's possible. And here's something interesting - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avinash_Patra As the author of that article was blocked, I suspect the creator of this article to be a sock of that person. As the article was deleted and the author didn't comment in the AfD, I can't really take it to SPI, not knowing the original username. Peridon (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original account is Avinashkrishnadasa (talk · contribs) and I have blocked the new account as an obvious sockpuppet. The author's article was deleted as a recreation of the deleted article referenced in the AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio? The coherent part of the article appears to be a copyvio of http://www.scribd.com/doc/39529551/The-Separation-of-Godhead and http://avinashmalhotra.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/the-separation-of-godhead/ both created Oct 2010. Text by the author of the book in question here, and claiming publication by OUP. I'd rather it get deleted at AfD than speedied - I've a feeling it may reappear and may need salting at some point. Peridon (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax, joke, or something similar. A two-page hardback book? Come on. And claiming to share the ISBN number of the Da Vinci Code really gives it away. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info A re-creation of the article about the author has just been deleted. And the creator of this article has been blocked... Peridon (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The book page is just dumb, even as hoaxes go, but the author page was at least actually funny, especially claims of having a "Doctorate in Litreture" [sic] from Oxford whilst clearly not being able to string a coherent sentence together. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering where the text of the book comes from. It's not at all the same style as the opening of the article, but I can't trace it beyond the sources I've given above. It looks like one of those things you find in charity shops (or used to), which make you wonder who bought it and gave it away again, and who, if anyone, is going to buy it again. Usually written by Swami Mahesh Shri Krishnadevanagari Puran Das or a similar name. (I liked 'Litreture' and rather wish I'd kept a copy.) Peridon (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it definitely has a "booklet handed out at the bus station" kind of feel to it. It's pretty tough to read, but not in the same style as the far duller gibberish by our hoaxer. I'm guessing it was just something copy-pasted in to fill out the article's length a bit. Too bad he didn't include the part where some guy becomes an author and poet by sucking on some other guy's toes. Yes, that's really in there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info. Not to pile on ... ok, I'm piling on: article uses the wikiquotes template to point to non-existent information on the title in Wikiquotes. Come on down oh magical admin type species and put this article out of its misery. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think it is a hoax, just a book that fails WP:NBOOK by a wide margin. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book may actually exist, but the fact that the article is/was chock full of inaccurate and misleading information (fake publisher, fake number of pages, fake ISSN number, fake OCLC number) leads me to classify the article itself as a hoax. But I do get and accept your point; the failure of WP:NBOOK is just another reason to delete (and possibly salt). --Quartermaster (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author's article has now been deleted again as a recreation of a deleted article from the aforementioned AfD. I recommend to the closing admin that the article be salted since this author has a pattern of recreating deleted articles. It is obvious that the author is trying to promote themselves on Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WTF? And yes, I'm piling on. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (btw, 3rd sock User:Saradasi, author now apparently Dr.Avinash Patra) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:23, 16 February 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 per checkuser evidence. This is obviously User:Jessica Liao. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special education[edit]

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

If this section does not get improved, then there is no point of having an article that does not provide a worldwide perspective. The section is strictly from a North American perspective. If someone can improve on it, I would be happy to keep this article. For now this article is horrible with this section in it, which is why I’m proposing for deletion. That information in that section is entirely wrong. They used the sources for misinformation. Here in the US, inclusion only means that a student is in regular classes full time, not partially in regular classes. If it were partially inclusion in the US, then that would be mainstreaming. I don’t see how that statement reflects a worldwide perspective. Schildy819 (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the wrong process is being used here. AFD is only for the deletion of articles because the subject doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, and certainly not because a single section may have an issue. If it's not something that you can fix yourself I'd recomend using the articles talk page. Also on the talk page there are several wiki-projects listed as having interest in the article. It may be that if you noted a concern on one of those talk pages it would bring some qualified editors in to help.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll be glad to userfy/incubate this if someone thinks they can fix it up. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of citizenship in the United States[edit]

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

Article WP:SYNTH and is a personal essay reproduced by author on blog. No way to make it encyclopedic without complete rewrite. Coffeepusher (talk) 12:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally agree it should probably be deleted. I created this article perhaps a year and a half ago; the original article has been whittled down to incomprehensibility (now it begins with the 20th century?) for concerns about WP:OR and WP:NPOV for which there may be some justifiable claims. It may be the kind of subject that Wikipedia can't handle? My public domain Google knol version (in my view) is excellent and getting better. It explores how citizenship changed from the 1700s to today -- from active participation in local government, attending town meetings, shuffling local government jobs, to today where few Americans participate in politics, only half vote for president every four years, few know the names of their congresspersons, making citizenship into a legal marker of membership, although the citizenship franchise expanded. So, perhaps deletion seems sensible. Regardless, people interested in American politics (most Americans aren't) can read my knol, if interested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, else Userfy. If it needs a rewrite then tag it with ((rewrite)). Seems a damn shame to delete this. It's suitably well-referenced and has much informative content. And, yes it's definitely a subject Wikipedia can and should handle. -- œ ^™ 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hey OlEnglish, I appreciate your response here. I think you're one of the few people who value things like citizenship & history of it as a topic. If the article survives I'll try to fix it up, possibly; I had concluded earlier that it wasn't worth fixing if I had to deal with other users chopping out whole sections. I still think Americans don't care about citizenship much today, which is too bad, but that's how it is; as a result, anybody trying to write about this topic will come under fire for broaching the topic.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete the probelms are too many--the author is uninformed about the history of citizenship and has loaded the article with strange and irrelevent stuffing. EG: lots of strange ill-informed notions about New England town meetings for example; misunderstanding of voting and military service. He always ASSUMES what the past was like, with zero history RS. It's a personal statement that will work much better outside Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stand by my thinking that's in my knol. I object to having my thoughts painted as "strange" or "ill-informed" or having "zero history" knowledge. I find professor Jensen's comment to be borderline insulting and dismissive. I personally challenge professor Jensen to debate me on this subject. It would be an instructive lesson for him to get his egotistical rear-end wholloped by me, a handyman, in a public forum; but then he might not be able to get a position at such a prestigious bastion of higher education -- Montana State University -- but would have to beg for a job teaching history to fifth graders. I came across one of his books -- not much there. I caught Jensen self-promoting here. Maybe Jensen's contributions throughout Wikipedia might be more thoroughly examined to look for more instances of self-promotion?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not sure this can be salvaged as it is more of an academic discussion than a set of facts to be recorded by Wikipedia for posterity. The discussion is fascinating though for those who know a little about the politics of social allocation. MLA (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear subject: the article sprawls over a variety of topics. Some of the material might be moved to other articles, but the existing article would need to start almost from scratch. I don't think an article at this title should be recreated. New articles on this general field should have better defined topics. Will Beback talk 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure original research Kuguar03 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Terrible amalgam of original essays, encyclopedia-worthy topic. Blowing it up without prejudice towards recreation wouldn't be a bad outcome. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 15 February 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. lifebaka++ 18:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by GDP per capitia (PPP) adjusted for inflation in 1980[edit]

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

This article was created over a month ago. At the time the creator asked for time to develop it so I removed my speedy tag. But over a month on there hasn't been much development. Although the info in the article can no doubt be verified as correct, I just don't see how it's notable (and therefore worthy of an article). Jenks24 (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sufficiently covered by List of countries by GDP (PPP) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. It's not clear why 1980 is so important and Template:Inflation will output 1980 inflation adjustment in other GDP (PPP) articles if there is a need. (It looks like the article was created from a "this-is-the-Wikipedia-account-I-use-to-cause-trouble" account.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uzma Gamal's rationale is pretty compelling for me. I'm also curious as to why 1980 is so important. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)#[reply]
Comment 1980 was a great year. Historical GDP lists would be very interesting and if sourceable would be encyclopedic. Not sure this article succeeds but GDP over time is notable. MLA (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wrote this article becouse I was frustrated that the GDP data for countries in the past was always in the dollar vallue of that year making comparisions across time unrealistic. 1980 is important becouse it is the first year the IMF gives comprehensive data for countries GDP. If other past GDP per capita lists are ajusted for inflation then there would be no longer a need for this article, but until then I think this article is the only one that shows, really, how countries have gotten richer or poorer over time. (compare Korea and kenya then and now).--J intela (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment: Actually, that makes a lot of sense. I'm moving from Delete to Neutral Leaning Towards Keep. I'm not sure how to proceed, but time series data based on seminal dates is . . . a good reason for keeping. Let's keep discussing. Might need a redirect to something more relevant and searchable? GDB Baseline or something? Or merging this data in the GDP article? Your point is important and confusing. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, abandoned, incomplete, malformatted, and original research. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a mess. Creator admits it is original research. Abductive (reasoning) 15:41, 23 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elz jenkins[edit]

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

Musician does not appear to meet WP:BAND. nn123645 (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is not even a claim of notability, much less any proof. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of name dropping, and apparently just released his fist single in 2011. However, there is no coverage in reliable sources. This is doubly so for the single for which I only can seem to find promotional spam like this and [35] which shows that the posts are cut and pastes from the same source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISOWORG[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional term. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 07:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect or merge Could be redirected to Henry Bentinck, 11th Earl of Portland, but as the novel in question isn't even mentioned there, a merge might be better. I can see no need for a keep, so failing this proposal, get shut of it. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional term. Delete per NOT:Avoid neologisms. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable doesn't need a stand alone article (not enough information for a stand alone article). Merge as appropriate. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources to WP:verify notability of this fictional term. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh_Patinkin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hugh Patinkin

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

person does not meet notability guidelines

Delete - Only claim to notability is being a relative of a notable person, but notability is not transferred that way. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless corporate notability is established.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 15 February 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. Happy to incubate or userfy this and (almost) all my other deletions for someone willing to work on it. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Choularton[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

possibly Keep if rewritten. It is possible that his motor racing is notable--I myself can not judge its importance. I think it's fairly clear that being the managing director of a merchant bank of the size given is notable, but of course it must be documented. Most of the rest of the article should be removed or much shortened. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that "Stephen Choularton was a director of C. P. Choularton, Sons & Partners Limited from 1970 to 1983" represents a sound basis on which to have an article about this guy.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, "being the managing director of a merchant bank of the size given" does not make hime notable, for two reasons. Firstly, we need evidence that he is notable in his own right: notability is not inherited in this way, even if the bank was notable.. Secondly, I see little evidence even that the bank was notable. Mere size does not establish notability, and there must be huge numbers of companies of the size that this bank was without any significant claim to satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not rewritten largely per DGG. (His glass is half-full, mine's half-empty...). The subject and his wife do seem quite clever in some respects, as witness "They have gone on to create Organic Food Markets which operates markets on eleven days per week in Sydney and Newcastle ...", which would seem to indicate great skills in time management. Otherwise, he's a man doing a job. Sometimes a fairly high up job, but a job. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has done lots of stuff, but like most people, he isn't notable for any of it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, you would expect me to say that as I am the author of the article, but ...

I consider I am notable in accordance with wiki criteria on two counts:

having being the Managing Director of a Merchant Bank with 5000 employees
Motorsport: having driven in a series where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series.

I actually made the entry as I noticed two motor sport user groups were talking about me and wondering about me so I guess I'm notable to them some 30 plus years after the event and I thought it useful to put on record a brief record of the facts of my life to date. I guess it is the purpose of an encyclopedia to hold such verifiable facts that others might find of interest and Wikipedia has (very) many entries on living individuals of more or less notability.

Turning to verifiability, I have now added the reference to the Merchant Bank's file at Companies House in London which contains a complete history whose veracity is the product of statutory obligations under the various Companies Acts of England. I will add credible refs to the motor sport section.

Turning to style, I did try to write neutrally. Indeed, I noted that I never formally finished school, which is hardly flattering, and I will further review the article to ensure it is neutral in tone. Of course if the article is left up anyone can make amendments in this respect.StephenChoularton (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't think you quite understand the concept of notability. Wikipedia based notability does not resemble "real-world" notability. A person meets Wikipedia based notability if, "...he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." "Having being the Managing Director of a Merchant Bank" or "having driven in a series where prize money is not trivial" do not in themselves establish notability. Nor does a listing in a website that states that you were a participant of the sport or Director from 19XX - 19XX. Meeting the Wikipedia criteria establishes notability. The coverage must be "non-trivial" and verifiable. Wikipedia is not the place to create a "What happened to page." Perhaps a personal website would better fit your needs. ttonyb (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant self-promotion, fails WP:NOTE. WWGB (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A transparent attempt at self-promotion that is entirely unsalvageable. No prejudice against re-creation by a person without a COI using independent, reliable sources. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotion, with no evidence of notability. Many of the "references" are sources that do not even mention Stephen Choularton, and most of the others give him only a passing mention. As an example, one is a link to a page about the selection process for a party candidate for a bye-election. The only mention of Choularton is the statement that he received no votes in the selection competition. A few of the sources might go a little further than that to establish notability, but not much, and most are no better than that, or even worse. One of them was even published two years before Stephen Choularton was born, apparently because it contains a list of names including his father, but it is not enough to indicate notability even of the father, let alone of the son. Apart from the author/subject's plea, the nearest we have to a "keep" is DGG's "possibly Keep if rewritten", but what we are considering here is the present article, not some hypothetical better article which has not yet been written. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete blatant attempt at using WP for self promotion. WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NOTRESUME. Statement in this AfD like "I am notable..." demonstrate clear disregard for WP guidelines. LibStar (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I am a Past President of the Young Liberals in NSW (1997) and if noteworthy means people know you, I can assure you that a large number of people in the Party and Parliament note Stephen and acknowledge the work he does. Clearly there are more noteworthy people than Stephen, but I think people will search for him and the information in the article find it useful. Incidentally, I think the Herald's report on what went on at that pre-selection isn't accurate . They are confidential affairs so that's as far as I want to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFalinski (talk • contribs) 04:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — JFalinski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Notability in Wikipedia means meeting Wikipedia criteria for notability, not if "people know you." The article is about a non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The article fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a bit of text in a policy debate once, "just because somebody's got some press doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article on them." Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 21 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hemmingson[edit]

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

Promotional page for a subject that fails WP:GNG and other relevant notability tests. Creator and primary editor has only contributed to this and a handful of related articles. Vast sections have no references, particularly those that describe alleged contributions to music, theater, journalism, academia, and literature. I have not been able to find any independent sources for these claims, or any sources whatsoever beyond a handful of blogs. ~~The extensive "Bibliography" appears to be entirely self-published works.~~ TJ Black (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should be referenced and cleaned up more (something people can work on), but the extensive biography is definitely not self-published and that is easy to research (I looked at 2 online book sellers and ebay and saw plenty of Hemmingson books). Several of the publishers are on Wikipedia, and I added links to some of them. Many of them are imprints of major publishers (Tor and Forge are Tom Doherty imprints, Carroll & Graf was an Avalon imprint that was purchased by the Perseus Books Group -- which also owns Blue Moon Books (forgot to link) and Thunder's Mouth Press, Gotham Books is a Penguin Books imprint). At the very least, Carroll & Graf and Tor Books immediately leapt out at me as big and memorable. Last year William Vollmann came through town on a book reading/signing tour, at a major bookstore, and one of the books included for purchasing and signing was the William T. Vollmann Reader. It was a nice looking book. If I have time later I'll see if I can reorganise the somewhat confusing bibliography. Madamecp (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever TJ Black is, he/she doesn't know how to research on the Internet very well. This entity claims the subject's books are self-published when in fact none of them are -- take for instance publishers Soft Skull Press, Black Lawrence Press, Tor/Forge Books, Carroll & Graf, to name a few, all of which have an extensive business history. It appears that TJ Black is vetting off a personal vendetta against the subject, perhaps in sex-work research and literature, and personal attacks on a subject's wiki page that lack professional acumen are not for here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worfpoe (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Worfpoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He has a new book out with Don Webb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Higherednerd (talk • contribs) 11:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC) — Higherednerd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. This page should be kept up. It only takes a cursory glance at the publisher names to see that this is far from some self-publisher listing every 10 page booklet he's ran off on the copier at work. Mr. Hemmingson's inclusion is very justified for both his critical and editorial work as well as his fiction writing. Just looking at Amazon shows that many new books could be added to his bibliography as well. Byoung67 (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First of all, comments about my motives for nominating this article are inappropriate and potentially a failure to assume good faith. Secondly, it does appear that I was too broad in claiming the bibliography was "entirely self-published", so I apologize for that and have struck that comment. I will, however note that there is a difference between self-publishing and "listing every 10 page booklet he's ran off on the copier". Many small press publishers do engage in vanity publishing, but there's no way to determine if that's the case here. But even if some of these works are found to be notable (none currently have wikipedia articles, though the Vollman reader is a possible candidate) then that notability does not transfer automatically to this subject. I'll also note that being listed on Amazon is NOT sufficient evidence of notability per WP:NBOOK. Nor is notability transferred through association with other notable individuals.

However, self-publication is not the central point of the nomination. It was, in fact, a pretty minor point. None of the responses so far have offered an argument as to how this individual satisfies any relevant guideline: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE being the most relevant. I'd suggest that the editors who feel this subject is notable focus on explaining how one of those guidelines are satisfied and improving the article so that notability is clear. Currently, there is a lack of reliable, independent sources and the article on the surface appears to be highly promotional. TJ Black (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article needs secondary sources. Right now, the only reliable source I see in the article is this trivial listing, which to me does not establish notability of the writer. Part of the challenge here is that the subject is a prolific writer, which makes finding sources about rather than by him a little more challenging. Some of the editors that have commented on here may want to review the guide to deletion discussions and arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to help insure that they are effective in communicating their opinions to the closing admin. VQuakr (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference for his archived list of articles (plus the dates) in the San Diego Reader, next to the one for his staff bio there. It's a long 5 year list, if anyone feels like reading articles for more references. I also added one for the most recent San Diego Book Awards finalist nomination. At which point I noticed I was making mistakes, and am therefore calling it a night. Madamecp (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does being a reporter for a local paper or being nominated for a local award establish notability? These are good references to add in case the article is kept, but they don't address the concerns about notability. TJ Black (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with the biography is that it lacks sufficient references. Therefore it's not a bad idea to add references for anything there that doesn't already have them. Madamecp (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs reliable secondary sources. I think TJ's question was why you are bringing up addition of more primary sources at the deletion discussion? VQuakr (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Subject does not appear to have received significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. Opinion is weak for me because the subject approaches criterion #3 of WP:AUTHOR, since some of his work appears to have received third-party reviews. VQuakr (talk) 05:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Still voting to Keep) I added a third party reference article about one of his plays at the Fritz Theatre. Third party reviews are easy enough. There's a handful from Review of Contemporary Fiction, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist archived at access my library. I also found one written by Ellen Datlow in The Year's Best Fantasy & Horror (1995). He has 3,100 entries on Google Books, and I don't think all of them are by him (if anyone is brave enough to look for things about him in such a long list). As far as no books having their own pages (mentioned way up this page), both of the Mammoth Books he edited (Mammoth anthologies are huge, and several already have wikipedia pages -- some under US names eg The Year's Best Science Fiction and Horror) and likely the Vollmann Reader should qualify. Maybe also the Avant-Porn anthology (there is a review by Lidia Yuknavitch in the contents of American Book Review, but no on-line archive). All 4 of those would establish him as an editor rather than a writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madamecp (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted your keep vote above to help a closing admin see it. I agree that there are some local reviews of some of Hemmingson's work, but I have not seen any about him. Per the guideline for creative professionals listed above, the author/editor may not be notable enough for their own article, even if some of their works are notable. The playbill article you posted is better than some since it does talk about the subject for a paragraph or two, but the coverage of him is still pretty trivial. Thanks for your ongoing work on this! VQuakr (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the format help. I normally remember to tilde my messages, but I'm tired and airheaded. I'll look for more references as soon as I feel like I have 1/4 of a brain. Um... the next person's post has line breaks. I'll fix it. Shouldn't it be Keep instead of Don't Delete, or does it not matter? Madamecp (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete Michael Hemmingson is a well known and controversial writer in a variety of genres. I have read more of his extreme horror than his other types of fiction and non-fiction, but I have read a lot about his other books. He has been in a lot of magazines and anthologies over the years and has a solid reputation as a critic of literature and culture. He has also edited anthologies, including at least one controversial one. James65.pike (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT. Has he been written about in secondary sources? VQuakr (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first learned about him back in the 90's. He was mentioned in several magazines at the time. I no longer have any of these magazines as my ex-wife threw all my old stuff in the trash (and that was when she liked me). I will look to see if I can find any current stuff but it will take some time since I've been busy lately. In the mean time, please don't delete the page. It was refreshing to see one of my favorite authors listed in wikipedia and disappointing to see it marked for deletion. James65.pike (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments and references that I thought might help. I'm looking for more. James65.pike (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For anyone who is looking for sources, I wanted to note that I reorganised and cleaned up (fixed some mistakes, added some ISBNs, removed non-links) the bibliography. I couldn't look at the previous version without my brain falling into a coma, so hopefully it'll help other people as well. Madamecp (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added more play references, at least one was a secondary source. I added appearances in a few anthologies from major publishers (because they are picky about who to print) that have excerpts on Google Books (proves he's in there, anyway). I added something by Larry McCaffery (estemeed literary academic and critic) that I think is the preface for the Avant-Porn anthology (at the least it's something by McCaffery that is an archive of his writings at spinelessbooks) to the External Links. I put it there because I wasn't sure what it would reference, unless the biography stated something about Hemmingson being nutty and needed a liability guard. Someone else added interviews to the Links, I haven't looked at them yet. And someone added more reviews. He's all over the place in blogs, but those can't be used. I'm going to be busy with life for a while, good luck to anyone else who is trying. Oh, and I'm moving Foreign Correspondence to Publishing History because it doesn't look big enough for its own section. Correct me if I'm wrong. Madamecp (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Madamecp (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks, Madamecp. I found a few Pipe targets for some of the red links, and unlinked the rest. Found a source or two while cleaning the citations. Anarchangel (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ham steak[edit]

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

The term "ham steak" is not in and of itself notable. This might merit a section in the main article about ham, but not a stand-alone article. This article is a stub, created a year ago with the promise by the original author, "DON'T DELETE! WE WILL IMPROVE SOON!" but he or she never did. I think this is thinly-veiled linkspam for the one "source" cited. (Contested PROD, which was removed by an anon IP editor with little or no explanation given.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing more than another wayof slicing of ham, nothing notable. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 05:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary this is a dictionary definition. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another way of slicing ham, which has its own article. Nothing really notable. 123Hedgehog456 09:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as disguised spam ~~and for making me feel hungry when I clicked on that link~~. Peridon (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ham steak is mentioned in an interesting Dec 2010 discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk - Ham and eggs in old American movies, which also mentions gammon steaks. Ham steak has been around since at least 1842.[36] With laborious research (e.g., chronogically going through "ham steak" references in Google books since 1842), someone probably could find enough interesting things to say about ham steak for a stand alone article. However, no matter how you slice it, it would be a difficult task. Until then, we need to send this undercooked meat back to the chef. (And yes, this AfD is making me hungry for some ham steak.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a list of funniest comments on AfD's somewhere around WP, as I recall, and I hope this entry makes it. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notable enough for a menu, but not notable enough for a wikipedia article. Couldn't find it in the OED --Quartermaster (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with nom that the article is apparently just an excuse to park an external link. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that Gammon, currently a disambiguation page, may one day deserve an article, into which mention of ham steak may be added, as it represents unique methods of cutting and curing ham. All of my research into it so far, and probably forever, has been added to Ham#United Kingdom. Anarchangel (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction literature[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable as a) a sub-genre of self-help books or alternately b) a literary phenomenon in the "seduction community." Coverage tends to discuss the named books as part of the "seduction community" phenomenon; there's no indication that "seduction literature" is a notable thing in and of itself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with the nom; while the "seduction community" itself is notable, that notability does not transfer to various related topics. They can be merged into the main article if appropriate. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have thought this was independently notable but apparently not - I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources of "seduction literature" having a meaning anything like what this article suggests. (Lots of NSFW content, though.) Seeing as "seduction community" seems to be largely defined as "adherents of seduction literature", any relevant content can be discussed on that article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet[reply]
Merge into seduction community, not notable by itself, really should be a part of the main article. 123Hedgehog456 09:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Can't find anything to establish independent notability. If kept, the article could easily be (ab)used to stealth spam wikipedia with non-notable titles. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything notable or worth keeping; Seduction community is notable enough, but does not warrant a fork like this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a recognized subgenre of literature. I don't agree with the above comment that seduction community is notable and encyclopedia-worthy either, but that's a AfD debate for another day. Carrite (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.nkr.am[edit]

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

Non-notable subject, insufficient information Ocean Shores 03:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A1 →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC) My mistake. Neutral then →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely does not fall under A1. The context is quite clear, .nkr.am is the internet domain for a region in the South Caucasus. It seems like internet domains would be fairly important and there are quite a few mentions on Google Books. Unfortunately, I don't read whatever language that is, so... Silver seren^C 04:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb question: is this a top-level domain on the order of a .uk or .us? Or is this just a website? I'm guessing, based on http://www.nkr.am/en/, that it's the latter, in which case I'm leaning weak delete without prejudice. We do have an article on USA.gov, which I guess is analogous, but a one-sentence article that misrepresents (I think?) what the site is doesn't really do anything useful. --B (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. A1 doesn't apply, and "insufficient information" is usually reason for expansion. In its current state this probably merits a redirect to Nagorno-Karabakh; "nkr.am" is not a Country code top-level domain, the TLD in this case is "am", for Armenia. "nkr" is simply a subdomain like the "ca" in the California domain "ca.us" or the qc in the Quebec doman "qc.ca". Those subdomains don't have wiki entries, so there's no clear reason why this should have one either. Hairhorn (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that makes sense. Thanks. I was confused by the language in the article. Yes, I agree delete (with prejudice). --B (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and merge into .am as subdomains are not considered notable. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this should not have its own page.Slatersteven (talk)
Delete as it stands. Nagorno-Karabakh is in a slightly different position to California and Quebec, but this is possibly a case of someone making a political point. Peridon (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Z-SAT: Zombie Survival Aptitude Test[edit]

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

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., it almost looks like it could be speedied. Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-published book. Third creation, second this week. It was G11 speedied twice. Salt this zombie. Cind.amuse 07:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's already been deleted at least once before. Might be self-promotional.MartinezMD (talk) 23:55, 17 February 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 The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. The content is available under the redirect for anyone caring to merge. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Average frustrated chump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wow, I didn't even realize this had been nominated so many times. Anyway, my reasons are the same as every other nominating editor's: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; "everyone uses this phrase" is not an argument for notability; fame in the "seduction community" does not translate to notability; passing mentions in articles on other things do not satisfy the notability guidelines. This term simply has not received the necessary coverage, and the article is, as it apparently always has been, a mass of original research. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists - No evidence of notability independent of the book "The Game". Four out of five sources are to this book, and the fifth mentions it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with the nom; while the "seduction community" itself is notable, that notability does not transfer to various related topics. They can be merged into the main article if appropriate. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet -- œ ^™ 15:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per nom. Peridon (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. There appears to be some sourced content here that can still be salvaged. Merge whatever's relevant and redirect. Or just redirect if noone is willing to perform the merge. -- œ ^™ 15:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the book, per above. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts in the seduction community[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

These terms ("bitch shield," "demonstration of value") are not notable; they have not received the requisite recognition in reliable sources. Nor has the idea of "seduction community" jargon received such recognition, which might possibly justify keeping the article even if none of the terms were individually notable. "Neg" is the only one that might be worth keeping, but it would need a more neutral title than "Neg (seduction)," which was the page name before a merge. (Note that I nominated this recently, but that closed as no consensus due to a WP:TRAINWRECK. I'm nominating separately now.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with the nom; while the "seduction community" itself is notable, the notability does not transfer to various related topics. They can be merged into the main article if appropriate. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet[reply]
Delete per nom. (I tell people off for saying just that, but here, what more is there to say?) Peridon (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Compilation of Urban Dictionary-type Dicdefs for a non-notable and non-encyclopedia worthy "community"... Slam dunk deletion here. Carrite (talk) 19:07, 15 February 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, requested by author. The author had also contested the proposed deletion of the page, which is why I started the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arkham Horror: Game Play/Fan Fiction[edit]

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

This article is a laundry list of problems. It's original research: it's User:MyArkhamHorror's interpretations of a game. It cites no independent reliable sources. The fan fiction in question is his own fic, so there's a COI issue in play. Hand-in-hand with the lack of independent sources, the stories aren't covered anywhere, so they aren't notable. To top it off, it sounds like the stories haven't even been written yet. I don't quite think this is a speedy candidate. However, I suggest deletion in the strongest possible way. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be deleating it, well apparently I cant so whoever does it.....

MyArkhamHorror

Speedy Delete G7 - I've tagged the article Speedy Delete G7 as the article's author appears to have requested deletion above. (Failing that, Delete as fundamentally unencyclopaedic content - fan fiction.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:50, 14 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High Maintenance[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC, future releases are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be deleted for the time being. At least until the title is confirmed and a cover is released. Fan4me (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC) *EDIT* Title was just confirmed on Miranda's twitter. http://twitter.com/MirandaBuzz Fan4me (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cover art and tracklist available. We should keep the article until it did not chart on Billboard chart. OK? Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 10:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not saying it shouldn't eventually have an article. However, without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, the article currently fails WP:MUSIC. When the album is released -- whether it charts or not -- it will be notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about redirect it to Miranda Cosgrove page? We'll wait for more coverage from independent reliable sources, without deletion. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 18:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to "Dancing Crazy" instead? - SummerPhD (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't support redirecting to "Dancing Crazy", but redirect to Miranda Cosgrove. Novice7 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

My opinion for redirecting to the single is the principle of least surprise. The name of the album doesn't occur in the Miranda Cosgrove article until the 12th paragraph. In "Dancing Crazy", it's in the second sentence. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. It's out in a month. The notability of the artist and the amount of coverage of guest appearances, etc. so far gives a good indication that it will get further coverage nearer to its release.--Michig (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, from a notable artist and already has a charting single. My goodness, people, what would possibly be the advantage of deleting (or even incubating) an article just to certainly bring it back a month later? Especially when the lead-up to release is when people are most likely to actually look for it and, y'know, read it. Remember them, anyone? The readers? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, officially announced future release by a notable artist complete with cover art, track-list and dates. Therefore not hammertime, Crystalballery nor a failure of WP:Music. A1octopus (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Track listing, artwork, charting single, and a notable artist. It can even be made into a pretty respectable article if someone took their time. There is enough information. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 04:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like it has better information now. So changing to keep. Novice7 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Johnson (producer)[edit]

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

This was a proposed deletion which I declined on the basis that it had previously been undeleted from a separate proposed deletion.

Argument in the most recent proposed deletion was "No in-depth coverage of this person available. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG." I'm passing this on to AfD on procedural grounds, there's evidence that there are folks who believe this merits deletion, and there's evidence that there are folks who contest that, so AfD it is. j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prod nom -- Y not? 18:00, 14 February 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ball Park Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AFD (September 2010) for this Australian indie band reached a consensus to delete on the grounds of failing WP:BAND. The text was userfied and it was returned to mainspace in November 2010 with additional WP:RS. I had deleted as a G4 but have been persuaded that this was not strictly applicable so have brought it back to AFD instead. I can see that they have made some progress, winning some kind of local competition and gigging at festivals (although that was before the last AFD) but the question is, is it enough? I don't know. nancy 08:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 09:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 09:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for both having national rotation and enough coverage for WP:N. Coverage extends beyond local going outside their home state. (note coverage provided in this article has been improved since nomination). Ongoing COI edits do not help things but do not stop this band from being notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - also as above. definitly not deletion worthy article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 20 February 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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosil de Costa[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews [37]. and the Spanish and Portuguese versions of this article are also unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 14 February 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. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Duniam[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. hardly anything in gnews [38].IMDB confirms one appearance in an episode and an uncredited appearance. hardly major roles. also nominating her twin Polly Duniam for the same reasons (her article is almost identical to her sister). LibStar (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One of the two main characters (the other being her sister) in a prime time BBC UK childrens TV series: Home Farm Twins. Have added BFI ref which I think is more authoritative then IMDB. Their appeareance and position at the top of lists and other info (their playing of the "Twins" in the Title of the series) indicate the staring roles in all episodes of the series: BFI: credits (Msrasnw (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PS: The book on which the TV programme was based was repackaged to include images of the Duniam twins on the front cover. http://www.jennyoldfield.com/books/farm/tv.htm (Msrasnw (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About as barely notable as you can get. Weak keep for both. The article here has two reliable sources, and some evidence of touring with a band. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Murray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely nothing of note happened after Idol. Precedent seems to suggest that low-seeds get redirected or deleted unless they do something of note. She has not; every source I found ties directly into Idol. WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless her state title and participation in the Miss America's Outstanding Teen pageant suggests other notability - it's not the same case as someone who's sole claim to fame is Idol PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator cites WP:BLP1E as reason for deletion, but that policy is explicitly meant to protect low-profile individuals. I don't see how "low-profile" could apply to someone who has gone on American Idol. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; regardless of whether Murry merits notability for what she's done, that's an extremely egregious misinterpretation of BLP1E. I'm at a completely loss to see how "trying out for a nationally broadcast television contest and appearing thereon in multiple episodes" equals "one event," and the nom further suggests that BLP1E somehow applies when individuals are only notable for one job. That Murray has no sources about her that are not about her Idol participation is relevant to whether she merits an article separate from her season's, but that does not by itself mean BLP1E applies. It is meant to protect privacy where there is no real informational gain because an individual has no notability outside of a notable event, such as a natural disaster, crime, etc. Under no circumstances should it apply to one's own actions intentionally undertaken to gain notability, and certainly not in such a context as appearing on American Idol for Christ's sake. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to season article. Competing at a beauty pageant doesn't guarantee ntoability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to season article. Irrespective of showing in X Idol Pop Superstar or similar, could only be considered a notable artist if subsequently met the music notability requirements. A couple of (other peoples') songs sung at local events does not qualify. A1octopus (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think most Wikipedians (and most Americans) would place American Idol in a different category than other reality-type TV shows. This is the Big Kahuna, not low-level shows like American's Top 40 Wannabe Fat Losers or such nonsense. The runner-ups often tour nationally even before and after they get knocked off the show, as happened in this case. Precedent has been to keep some of the articles of the "losers" on American Idol because they pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, see e.g., Melissa Sgambelluri. In this case, Murray performed five times on National TV, in at least three states, and continued her career, albeit at a lower level. Now, I'll be honest, I didn't pay attention to her and can't recall her, but I'm not one of her fans. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Redirecting to the season article would be completely appropriate if all the coverage of Murray were passing mentions in news articles primarily about the TV show. But that's not necessarily the case. Here and here at MTV News, here and here at USA Today online, here at WHBQ-TV, here at the Los Angeles Times, this in The Dispatch, this in the Hattiesburg American, here in The Clarion-Ledger, and so on, we see the level of coverage for which we typically give a subject a separate article. If all the coverage were like this, it could more persuasively argued that it is merely coverage of the TV show and thus a redirect would be the way to go. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Paul Erik. Murray is my favorite American Idol contestant ever. Based on her Twitter account, there is a possibility that Murray will be signed a record deal in the foreseeable future. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Edwards (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

She's done absolutely nothing after placing #11 on American Idol. Nothing at all. Utterly fails WP:MUSIC, textbook WP:BLP1E — no sources found that weren't related to Idol. First AFD was while she was still on Idol; second was speedy closed because it was a disruptive nomination made by a user who AFDed a bunch of Idol contestants willy nilly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ultimately the rationale for keeping on the second AFD was correct. WP:MUSICBIO criteria number 9. Although 11th place is a low place, it is ultimately a place in the competition. If anything, it should be merged into the American Idol (season 6) article. --Fbifriday (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into American Idol season 6, being sure to add a bit of the content of this article.KeptSouth (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator cites WP:BLP1E as reason for deletion, but that policy is explicitly meant to protect low-profile individuals. I don't see how "low-profile" could apply to someone who has gone on American Idol. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; regardless of whether Edwards merits notability for what she's done, that's an extremely egregious misinterpretation of BLP1E. A "textbook case" might instead be a hapless victim caught up in a natural disaster, who gets reported in the news for human interest purposes because they lost their house, family, whatever. It is completely unreasonable to try and cram "trying out for a nationally broadcast television contest and appearing thereon in multiple episodes" into "one event." And under no circumstances should it apply to one's own actions intentionally undertaken to gain notability. postdlf (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the season article. She had her brief moment in the spotlight and done nothing since. She had her 15 minutes of fame, which has not translated into notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a semi-finalist on American Idol is in many minds per se notable. To get there, the contestants had to go through a brutal audition process of many phases, and performed several times on TV and in different cities. These semi-finalists, Edwards included, almost invariably pass WP:MUSICBIO just because of the process. In particular, she performed in public in Memphis, Hollywood, and Pasadena; performed five songs; and appeared on at least four episodes of the show. I would assert that appearing in the later phases of American Idol creates a rebuttable presumption that a singer is notable. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Coverage of Edwards such as this in USA Today is an example of coverage that AI finalists often get. It's not an article about Idol, but an article about her, even if it springs from her Idol fame. Redirecting to the season article would be completely appropriate if all the coverage of Edwards occurred only as brief mentions in articles primarily about the TV show. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO. Aspects (talk) 14:32, 22 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Bond Gallery[edit]

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

I see a lot of coverage for artists that the Page Bond Gallery has hosted, but the gallery itself gets trivial mentions at best. I'm not seeing enough stand-alone notability for them to pass WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Gnews search gives many hits, but all seem to be incidental mentions in articles about artists. If someone can find more substantial coverage that I have overlooked, I would be happy to change my vote. Sailsbystars 13:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I've been there, and even though WP:ILIKEIT, I agree the requisite substantial coverage in reliable sources seems to not be there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 14 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STALKER Magazine[edit]

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

Non notable webmagazine, no reliable third party sources. As it fails currently fails WP:42, and cannot pass that threshold, I believe it should be deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete there's a small chance that the defunct print version might have been notable, but the website certainly isn't. Without reliable sources though it has to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:02, 14 February 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. A merger discussion may be taken further on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schools of Chinese Tea Ceremony[edit]

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

This is a list of just two schools. One is of low notability and the other is of unknown notability. This article is redundant with the articles on those two schools. Between the two articles on the schools, and Chinese tea culture, there's no need for this one. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both are already mentioned in Chinese tea culture, no need for a separate article on them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same purpose as the Schools of Japanese tea ceremony, this article should pertain to education of Chinese tea ceremony. icetea8 (talk) 11:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IceTea8. The need of an encyclopedic article on Chinese tea ceremony schools is indubitable. Whether specific schools are notable enough is an editing question, see wp:deadline and wp:notcleanup ^walk victor falk^talk 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So are you saying WP:ITSUSEFUL? And WP:INHERITED (from the Chinese tea ceremony)? Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Chinese tea culture. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:31, 14 February 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) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zigi Ben-Haim[edit]

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

Non-article about a sculptor and painter. No evidence offered. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Observer article verifies his exhibitions at Guggenheim, Ghent Museum and Tel Aviv Museum of Art. This established notability per WP:ARTIST. The article needs more references but otherwise it seems fine. freshacconci talktalk 02:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist's work is in an impressive list of museums. That makes him noteworthy.Wmpearl (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong exhibition history & articles like "Joan Marter (auth), Contradictory worlds: The art of Zigi Ben-Haim, Arts Mag, 11/85" crop up on google. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Haa900 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Wilson (composer)[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:COMPOSER. No independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article's creator, and recommend that Wikipedia Keep the page. The fact that Josef Weinberger Ltd.(London) and Boosey & Hawkes (London) have accepted his work for publication, and included them in their catalogues, complete with reference numbers, constitutes an external acceptance of his work. In addition, there was already a page for the composer on the German site of Wikipedia. TheAMmollusc (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COMPOSER - being published is not enough. A page on another Wiki does not establish notability. A list of compositions does not establish notability - this requires significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not related to the articles creator, but I know Alan Wilson from University life in the 1980's. Everything in the article is correct. As a composer he has not received the attention he deserves. His church music is brilliant. So, please keep the article. I found it whilst researching what he is doing now. Jeremy Honeybun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.41.196 (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:COMPOSER by a wide margin, claims of fondness among supposed former school chums nonwithstanding. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just found an article on him on bach-cantatas, which I will put on Ext links, to be considered. I don't know anything else yet about him, but he is clearly not as little recognized as I read above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alan Wilson is listed with some compositions, published by different publishing companies, in the German National Library: [39]. --Density (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep mainly because of publication by Boosey. Couldn't find reviews, but then it's such a hard name for searching. --Klein zach 14:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per German National Library in addition to the comment above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The award from the Royal School of Church Music is prestegious within the field of church music. That coupled with being published by Boosey clinches notability I think.4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Don[edit]

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

No relevant sources, and fails notability criteria for actors as far as I can see. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 00:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability per WP:GNG WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources WP:VRS; per WP:BLP not notable Chzz ► 00:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not fulfill Actors' Notability or Creative professionals' Notability. IMDb, teen idols 4 you, and connect.in.com are not reliable sources, external links section is mostly a repeat of links to those three websites. Shearonink (talk) 04:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apparently Paintballspy (talk · contribs) (WP:SPA) has no interest in this discussion and prefers to remove the notice from the page, and he has done so twice now (since 76.172.95.131 (talk · contribs) appears to be the same user, before he logs in (see page history)). [[CharlieEchoTango]] 22:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Musamies (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Lack of verifiability or coverage in relioable sources fails WP:GNG. Acting career[40] fails WP:ENT. His being in commercials belongs only in a resume... unless his being in those commercials received coverage... and it has not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IKAN[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company and its equally non-notable product. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources: Fails WP:N. What sources we have are either blogs and user-submitted content, or they are trivial mentions in somewhat more reliable, independent sources like the Journal du Web. Both articles were prodded, prod removed by author without showing significant coverage in reliable sources. Huon (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Back-office maker of "application lifecycle management" software, apparently software that assists in the making of more software. No indication that this business has ad any significant impact on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason seems to be not notable company and product. Mainly this is because there are no apparent third party unbiased articles. This is partially true I must admit. Though IKAN does have obvious partnerships with notable companies, for example they created and sold a product which is now owned by Oracle (a notable company).
Application Lifecycle Management is a well known term in application development and a term which seems to be notable enough on its own (hence the page). The IKAN ALM software is Application Lifecycle Management software, yet it is different from the rest because it allows the existing development environment of any company to be upgraded to ALM, instead of forcing the client to use new software.
By the way, this software runs in large international companies. Most of the companies in this industry listed on Wikipedia should also be deleted then, because of the same reasons. Best Regards (Johan Van Camp (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)).

Comment Johan Van Camp left the preceding text on the talk page, which should probably count as a keep. I'd like to add two comments: Firstly, notability is not inherited. Oracle certainly is notable, being a partner of Oracle is not inherently notable. Secondly, that other articles exist which suffer the same problems is not a reason to keep this article; I would probably agree that the other articles should be deleted as well. Huon (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added some more references regarding the other product. To avoid confusion, if one would encounter the name Minerva somewhere, it is a distributor of IKAN. (Johan Van Camp (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any evidence either in the article or elsewhere that this passes our WP:CORP guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles per nom. Non notable company & product, unreliable references Ingadres (talk) 21:57, 18 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay King[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, none of the references cited mention the subject. Proposed deletion contested by article creator. Borkificator (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems his 'notability' is only inherited from his family. Can't find any relevant sources either. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 00:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His father was notable, and his cousin was deleted at AfD (2006). This one seems to be noted mainly (entirely?) for backing his father on vocals and drums, and not to have done anything else thought worthy of inclusion in the article. Peridon (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not conferred simply by being related to a notable person. May warrant a mention on father's page, does not warrant own article under terms of WP:Music. A1octopus (talk) 18:23, 14 February 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.