< 17 February	19 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 delete. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Europeada 2008[edit]

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

Extremely non-notable football competition. Only Google results seem to be Wikimirrors, Facebook, etc. No hits at all in Google News, suggesting the tournament got no coverage whatsoever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to a comment on this page the so-called 'Wales' team come from the Cardiff and District Premier League. That's tier 7 in the not-exactly-mighty Welsh football league system. Stu.W UK (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; a minor, minor tournament. Giant Snowman 12:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong support non-FIFA football tournaments may not get as big a coverage but they do have a large presence (see the size of the teams for the football tournament). at any rate, how does it become non-notable all of a sufdden? because 1 person sugested a possible from the 2010 edition? (which was obviously ready for deletion as it didnt happen) it was pertinent and heavily viwed/edted when it happened.

also, voting is not tallied per Stu.W UK just because one team is listed wrongly doesnt make th e whole page non-notable to delete. One can improve instead of deleteing it.

Likewirse GiantSnowman WP:Consensus notes you need a reason not "as above"Lihaas (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lihaas - find some evidence of WP:N and I'll change my vote. From what I could see from google, Chris is right - no news articles and a few fan comments Stu.W UK (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notable through the supranational entity "Federal Union of European Nationalities"Lihaas (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The FUEN is a notable organisation, but their football tournament isn't. It's like saying a barbecue is notable if it's hosted by the UN. I have no idea why I thought of that as an example, but there you go. You've edited about a billion articles so I'm sure you know all this. Find sources that meet the WP:GNG then it'll be notable.Stu.W UK (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this and [1] this which is a rather meagre amount of sourcing for a soccer tournament. Coverage of the tournament as it progressed appears not to have really happened. I am not convinced of notability with the sourcing I've found and the article itself has no independent sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 08:12, 26 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 Franklin Pierce#Family. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Pierce (1841–1853)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, and there's nothing here other than his birthplace that isn't already in his father's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I understand Clarityfiend's point, there has always been great interest in the children of U.S. presidents, and we now have at least 89 articles about them, including Patrick Bouvier Kennedy who died at 2 days of age. I think the unique circumstances of Pierce's death justify an article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the child of the POTUS does not ensure notability. Patrick Bouvier Kennedy is a different case than Benjamin Pierce. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While his death is notable, there is no information on the article that isn't in the article on his father. I don't therefore see what the article contributes to the project really Pi (Talk to me! ) 02:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Franklin Pierce#Family. Clear case of WP:BIO1E with easy main article to find. At least the death of Patrick Bouvier Kennedy had some sort of lasting impact with regards to Infant respiratory distress syndrome. Here there's nothing to justify a separate article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Franklin Pierce#Family -- Whpq (talk) 14:04, 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) 02:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Stime[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines at WP:BIO. His highest viewing figures for a video on youtube are in the 30,000 range, and google search reveals no great notability for his work in aquaria. Stu.W UK (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support Deletion. The article doesn't sight his notability, all the references are to his own websites and projects. As Stu says, he doesn't even have all that many YouTube views. Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage about him in reliable sources. He was quoted in this article but that does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 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 speedily deleted (G11). The article was clearly written as a campaign piece, to promote a particular view. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americanization of INDIAN CHRISTIANITY[edit]

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

Contested prod. Short, unreferenced polemical piece about exactly what it says in the title. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:SOAPBOX andy (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this where a concept that were referenced then I would be keener to keep but it's a soap box. JASpencer (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It clearly fails wikipedia guidelines.КĐ^♥ 23:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unfit for inclusion by any standards. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't fit Wikipedia article standards. Baseball Watcher 23:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP - "A strong voice needs to be raised against this Western Christian hegemony," etc. St Anselm (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is original research, personal oppinion and unreferenced. It does sound like the type of topic that could be an article, but this doesn't seem suitable. Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:02, 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 speedy delete. Page is a copyright violation of [2]. -- Lear's Fool 10:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Church[edit]

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

Using various combinations of French Church, Staten Island and Greenridge I can find no mention of this church. The only relevant page I find is a wiki site about Huguenots on Staten Island, but it doesn't provide any info that can identify this church here. It seems to fail WP:V, especially as it is difficult to know exactly what sources the contributor was referring to. The onus should be on the contributor to clearly state sources, not for readers to have to go digging for them. Contested Prod. Ravendrop 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is also mentioned here and here and in this book. This website seems to indicate that the site is at "Arthur Kill Rd. & Cortelyou St." St Anselm (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I contested the prod, explaining that the sources were given in such as way that they could be found, but needed to be stated exactly. Yes, ideally I should have done better and actually done the work at the time, but what I was doing was screening as many prods as possible for deletion, not trying to write all the articles also. (People have from time to time called me lazy for not fixing perfectly ever article I look at, but I suppose I should treat that as a tribute.) I just added one clean ref. to document the appointment of the minister, and I see there are others. G and its relatives often need some human assistance: when a name is non-distinctive work, one looks for something that is distinctive. In this case, the name oft he church was hopelessly unsearchable, but the name of the minister was given. When the name of an author is indicated, but the the title of the book, one can look for his books. There is even another method, the classical one, which is to find a book on the overall subject and read it; it was quite possible to do good research before the googles were invented. The original article was exceptionally sloppy, but since it is an historically important subject, it's worth doing the work to improve it. (not that everyone must, but if there's an article and I find myself unable to improve it due to limitations of time, resources, language or whatever, I do not assume that nobody else can do so.) . DGG 05:49, February 19, 2011
Delete: If you don't feel like doing the work to find the sources, what basis do you have for contesting the prod? You shouldn't contest on the basis that sources exist unless you are certain that they actually do, and that can't be the case if you haven't bothered to do the work; indiscriminate prod removal without a scrap of investigation is nothing short of vandalism and disruptive editing. That being said, the sources proffered are trivial mentions at best; none discuss the subject in the "significant detail" that the GNG requires. Beyond that, the nom is absolutely right: policy is clear on the fact that it is the explicit duty of editors who want to save an article to provide valid sources, not merely to speculate - absent a shred of proof - that such sources exist. Ravenswing 10:01, 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) 02:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yancy Gates[edit]

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

Looks like an "ordinary" NCAA college basketball player. He is a starter in his junior year for the Cincinnati Bearcats. Only college accolades are 2010-2011 pre-season honorable mention and 2008-2009 all-rookie Big East Conference teams. In high school as a senior, he earned first-team all-Ohio and fourth-team Parade Magazine All-America. Bgwhite (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There is some coverage of Gates on Google News, I saw a 2007 Cincinnati Enquirer article (behind a paywall) and coverage of a suspension from play a couple weeks ago.[3] However, this is all local coverage from what I can see (also, the suspension has undue weight potential, especially in a BLP), and I found nothing significant from any national sources. I wouldn't be shocked if something was found via deep digging, but until that happens I'm on the delete side. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable as a basketball player as is. Maybe if he becomes a consensus All-American or major award winner next year, the article can be re-created. For the time being he is not notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:58, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Hendricks, Jr.[edit]

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

Thousands and thousands of people have served as state legislators throughout America's history, and they very rarely become notable. I see no exception here, and notability is not inherited. Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator should review our notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN which is a result of years of consensus building. State legislators are presumed to be notable, sources exist to create encyclopedic articles about them, and this and all similar articles should be kept. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per guidelines, sub-national legislators are always considered notable. We have too few articles on state legislators, not too many. --NellieBly (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. St Anselm (talk) 02:49, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books LLC[edit]

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

All the sources here are highly dubious and seem to be blacklisted sites on Wikipedia that have some how gotten in. While well known at WP:RSN it doesnt seem to have any notability except for a few blogs going WTF... fails WP:CORP The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was an article about this company in Metro recently. I checked that we already had an article when I read it as I've long noticed this company's books showing up in Google searches and the matter is of obvious interest to Wikipedia editors who may like to know what is being done with their work. Here's another good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just added another source. I don't agree with their business practices either, but that doesn't make them non-notable. bobrayner (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added ((WikiProject Companies|class=start|importance=low)) ((WikiProject Tennessee|class=start|importance=low)) to the article talk page, as I think every article being rescued should have the appropriate project templates. I need to look at the inline citations and explore elsewhere before I say anything about the merits. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confer 15:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems well-sourced enough for me. SnottyWong ^confer 15:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems well sourced but examine closely its all blogs and random websites. The Washington Post source is a humorous essay not a news article. The only WP:RS is the Metro article just added.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which are Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and Tiroler Tageszeitung: blogs or random websites? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is a national German newspaper of very wide international circulation. The inline citation here substantiates the business practices of Books LLC, at least in German. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if we deleted every unsavory article, there would be little left. The sources therein appear to be notable, but my German is very weak so I can't attest to them. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently enough sources, and worthy for inclusion because editors and the public should be informed about their business practices. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: unjustified afd nomination and total waste of time. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Snow Keep. Based on the above keeps, and the refs. Someone please come along and close this, and spare our fellow editors further wasted time on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This company is notable. TFD (talk) 16:22, 25 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) 02:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Depression[edit]

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

The article is entirely original research with no bases in reliable sources. A Google search for "Anime Depression" turns up with nothing. See also Naruto: Shippuden on Disney XD Affair for a very similar article which was deleted do to lack of coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Disputed prod. —Farix (t | c) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This made me LOL, Anime depression, really? Where was I when this all went down? Anyways delete per Farix WP:OR Galore. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not one item is sourced and searching for sources come up empty. This is just original research. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 16:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJ98 (Talk) 03:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 24 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 for Syldavian and no consensus for Bordurian with leave to speedy renominate the latter. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syldavian[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional language. Although this is a well-developed article, I can't find any actual coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm listing Bordurian for the same reason. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC) (A Google Books search shows that there is some mention of it in reliable sources, but no coverage that could arguably be described as significant.) Robofish (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Syldavian, Delete Bordurian. The Adventures of Tintin are about equally widespread as the Bible, so you can hardly call it unnotable. And Syldavian is one of the most famous and classical examples of a fictional language. I actually own a book about it, although it's not mentioned in the references section. I'll add it once I can find it. On the other hand, Bordurian exists only in the form of a few names and words, and that's basically all that could be said about it. The article is nice, but it's one huge pile of OR, so it shouldn't be here. A few sentences about Bordurian could be mentioned in the Syldavian article, actually. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Tintin series is extremely popular, and as a fictional language Syldavian is quite well developed and interesting as an example of a constructed language. Bubbha (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Syldavian, merge and redirect Bordurian to Borduria#Language, per above rationales. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Syldavian, although I might be biased as an editor. Needs further elaboration on canon material, and Mark Rosenfelder's work on the language. Further comments? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^walk victor falk^talk 07:06, 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) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Buko[edit]

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

Subject does not meet criteria of WP:BAND. I can't find any verification that he won a freestyle competition on MTV (either as Charles Buko, C-Hustle, or C-Hust); any mention of it from Google comes from other pages that have copied this article ... discospinster _talk 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about him in reliable sources. Based on the assertions in the article, it would seem he has self-released one EP and has had some minor airplay with "Ride With A Pimp". That's not enough to meet either of the general notability guidelines, or the one specific to musicians. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet the notability guidelines at WP:Music.4meter4 (talk) 08:16, 26 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) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mailer[edit]

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

Non-notable person: falls under WP:BLP1E as a person only 'notable' for one event. He's an unsuccessful political candidate, but the only significant coverage of him in reliable sources relates to his 2010 conviction for forgery. That isn't enough to base a Wikipedia biography on. The continued presence of this article raises serious BLP issues. Robofish (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is a close call. The legal troubles did get a fair amount of press coverage. But its pretty clear he doesn't meet the guidelines for notable politicians. So, if he is notable, it is for one very negative happening. Being that this is a BLP tipped the scales for me toward delete. David Able 21:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A not notable political failed candidate with a rap sheet attached, clear BLP issues as neither his fraud conviction or his political career is wikipedia notable. Although it doesn't alter the lack of notability, editing efforts to to address the BLP issues and reduce the weight of the conviction content in the BLP have been repeatedly reverted by the creator of the article User:Emeraude. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate, forgery conviction only attracted local press coverage. January (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said elsewhere, the only way Mailer is notable is through the intersection of his conviction and his political "career." The problem is his notability as a politician is so weak that the only thing that stands out is his conviction. The opening line of the article is unsupported and, as far as I can tell, untrue: "Peter Mailer ... is a leading member of the British National Party".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I read somewhere that a whole party section (in London?) was expulsed, since two were infiltrators from MI6, two from anti-fascist organisations, one openly gay and one living with a "coloured" girl-friend. So, he might be relatively leading? ^walk victor falk^talk 02:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much as I love to see this sort of information about BNP figureheads reach as wide an audience as possible, precedent from previous deletion debates has been that unsuccessful candidates who subsequently get a minor bit of coverage in a news event that would fail WP:NOTNEWS are still not notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD process is apparently coming about to resolve BLP issues with the article. This is NOT the purpose of the AfD process. Elsewhee, the, question of BLP policy for this article is being actively discussed (see here and I can only assume that the AfD is an attempt to short circuit that process. If their are BLP issues they should be debated at the appropriate place, either the article's discussion page or the BLP noticeboard. Be that as it may, let me deal with both the BLP and the deletion nomination.

The BLP issues revolve around Mailer's being investigated for alleged offence of racialy motivated public order offence. No one has questioned the veracity, nor the verifiablity of the article; indeed, to do so would be pointless since all is cited from reliable sources. What seems to be the stumbling point is whether it is acceptable to mention that Mailer was twice arrested, but was not charged. Some have implied that this means he is entirely innocent - this misses the point, in several ways. Firstly, the article does say quite clearly (or did) that the Crown Prosecution Service did not press charges. There are a whole variety of reasons why the CPS does not press charges, the most likely here being that a prosecution would not be in the public interest. What it most certainly does not mean is that he was acquitted or that hey found the material complained of was not displayed. Secondly, the events as described did happen, though that still leaves open the question of whether or not they cast the subject unduly in a bad light. Thirdly, aside from the reliable sources quoted (including, note, mainstream media at the time he was a candidate for election) there are countless other references (search for Peter Mailer on Google to see). Wikipedia would not accept these as reliable sources, given they are from political groups or blogs either opposed to Mailer or passionately devoted to him. (This, of course, does not mean they are untrue.) Of the latter, the wording is almost always the same, indicating a shared source. That source is Peter Mailer, i.e. he is his own publicist. It's a generally accepted principle of law that you cannot slander yourself; on that basis, it is fair to use the information. The source of the stories is (or was) followable from some of those sites, his party's website - [4] - please note the name of the title page. Unfortunately, I say "was" because the BNP has removed all mention of Peter Mailer from its website since his conviction. Anyone going to bnp.org.uk and using their search facility will find no trace - unusual for a party organisr, local candidate, national candidate and European candidiate, but understandable considering the BNP's desire to present itself as a law-abiding party. In other words, at the time of his public order problems he was a hero, now he's an embarrassment.

As I said before, the question of whether or not this article should be deleted is not relevant to the BLP debate. If there is a BLP problem, it can be sorted. Any calls for deletion above should be disregarded if they give BLP as the sole reason, in the same way that we do not delete article just because they are poorly sourced or just because they are badly written - we make the necessary changes and improve them.

The issue here can only be whether or not Mailer reaches the notability guideline, and I stress that it is just that, a guideline. Now there is no reason within the general Wikipedia:Notability guideline for deletion; this article and its contents conforms. Looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline (note, again, guideline) as applied to politicians, there would appear to be a debatable case for deletion. However, 1 Mailer is not notable just because he is a politician. 2 Nor is he notable just as a convicted fraudster. But put the two together, and combine with the facts that 3 he committed his frauds and was involved in a criminal investigation for public order while a candidate for election by a party that loudly and vociferously proclaims its policies on law and order. Taking all three together, he becomes something else. This seems to be covered by Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." (and that is the case). Emeraude (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are we describing him as a "leading member of the British National Party", in the present tense, if there is no mention of him on the BNP website? Chzz ► 19:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, other than for one event. Emeraude, if you want specific policies, then look at WP:V and WP:NPOV - and ask yourself if there is sufficient information about this person in reliable sources for us to present a neutral, balanced article about him. I cannot see evidence of such coverage, because he is notable for the one event. Also, BLP concerns are absolutely a relevent consideration in AfD, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Chzz ► 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specific policies? WP:BIO starts "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline." WP:N begins "This page is about Notability guidelines". I referred to both above. One event? 2009 European election is one. 2010 general election is two. Unfair dismissal of employee is three. Failure to pay her compensation awarded and assets frozen is four. Reported for public order offence is five. Reported again is six. Fraud offences is seven. And soon to come confiscation of criminal assets hearing will be eight. Sufficient information in reliable sources? BBC News. Daily Mirror. Newspaper reports of public order complaints. Newspaper reports of trial. Newspaper reports of conviction. Newspaper reports of sentencing. Emeraude (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Events generally don't count towards a person's notability if the event itself isn't notable, and none of the events look notable. The notability guidelines are at WP:EVENT, but in general the event needs to have some kind of ongoing coverage after the event has taken place (and not just routine reporting on any subsequent trial or sentencing). If the BBC and Daily Mirror coverage you mean is the listings of candidates in the 2009 and 2010 elections, that doesn't count (otherwise every MP and MEP candidate would be notable, contrary to WP:POLITICIAN). This leaves a handful of mentions in local papers, which isn't substantial coverage. I say this with some regret, because I'd love to see more articles on Wikipedia showing what the BNP are really like. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North_East_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results per WP:POLITICIAN: In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. While dubious for its own article, the material is sufficient to motivate a redirect. ^walk victor falk^talk 18:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no objection to the redirect.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to North_East_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)#Election_results per WP:POLITICIAN and victor falk. Location (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC) last edited 18:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - considering the rap sheet state of the article and the objections as commented upon on the talkpage I would prefer the article and talkpage is deleted and a redirect created if desired after. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I agree and have altered my recommendation to reflect this. Location (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Note process: "Deleting a biography in these cases instead of merely redirecting it makes recovering useful information from the page history difficult, and should be done only when there are relevant reasons other than lack of notability for removing the article from the mainspace." (WP:BIO#Politicians Note 13) Also, please note that "the rap sheet state of the article and the objections as commented upon on the talkpage" would still subject to an ongoing discussion if the article had not been brought here deliberately to short circuit the discussion, byt three editores who had between them made more than two dozen edits to the article! Emeraude (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per reasoning given above.4meter4 (talk) 08:19, 26 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) 02:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Logistics Business[edit]

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

References show no depth of notability Stu.W UK (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Speedy delete. This is about a independent, specialist supply chain and logistics consultancy. Yeah, ok, one of those. At any rate, the article really doesn't say anything about this business that suggests it meets a minimal claim to importance, much less long term historical notabiility. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 07:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 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) 02:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rooks (promoter)[edit]

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

Delete. Notability has not been established through significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Outside of IMDb and social networking sites, coverage appears to be court documents pertaining to a lawsuit in which the subject was involved. Cind.amuse 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source and there are no other sources offered. When I search for sources, I find a game warden, a veterinarian, a criminal and an NAACP official with the same name, all getting more media attention. This particular Robert Rooks is not notable due to lack of reliable sources discussing him in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article originally replaced the vet's article in an edit by Robrooks (talk · contribs). When the vet article was restored, I went into the history and placed the text in this article. The username of the article's creator tells us a lot. I myself have no opinion on this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 07:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Middleton[edit]

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

Delete. Notability is not established independent of her sister, Kate Middleton. References provided tend to focus on Kate, while offering peripheral mentions of the subject of this article. If the subject was not related to the future wife of Prince William, the subject of this article would not merit coverage. See WP:NOTINHERITED Cind.amuse 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst WP:NOTINHERITED is certainly a concern, this is an article in a national newspaper about her that does not mention her sister. Therefore, whilst she may well have become as prominent as she has because of her sister, she appears to have some independent notability of her own. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't' seem to have done anything of note really and full of trivia about who she's dating or about her mother and sister. I suppose her future maid of honour role might be notable but then that's again related to her sister and would still mean she's only notable for one thing and therefore not worthy of an article. One article in a national newspaper about trivial things she's up to doesn't make her worthy of an article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pippa Middleton's career to date clearly isn't notable (which is equally true of that of her sister Kate), but per Wikipedia:Notability she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "Significant coverage" means addressing the subject directly in detail, "more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". "Pippa Middleton" (with quotation marks) gives 72,000 google hits, and the number is fast rising. According to this story she is now expected to become a Lady in Waiting. She will soon be easily recognized by the majority of the British people, if she isn't already, and that in itself is a form of notability. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: According to this, the Pippa Middleton page was viewed 23,400 times on 15 February, which I find fairly impressive. Clearly, there is a demand for it. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that Pippa hasn't done anything notable other than be the sister of a more famous woman, but the GNG trumps all subordinate notability criteria. It's plain that she passes it, whatever anyone might think of the source of her fame. Ravenswing 10:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although notability is not inherited, in this case, coverage is inherited. Like it or not, being the sister of the bride-to-be of the second in line to throne is of sufficient interest to generate significant coverage about he in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close as WP:SNOW. The amount of coverage here clearly satisfies WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 08:23, 26 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 both. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 Cheshire Senior Cup[edit]

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

Such a minor competition does not merit individual season articles. For the same reason I am also nominating 2010-11 Cheshire Senior Cup -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no need for season-by-season articles. Giant Snowman 12:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007–08 Lancashire FA Challenge Trophy. Bettia Talk 12:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both no need for such an article. Kante4 (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: competition is notable, individual seasons for tournements of this scale (i.e. county level) are not.Delusion23 (talk) 11:49, 25 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) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1001 Internet Jokes[edit]

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

No indication that this book meets WP:NBOOK. I will also nominate the sequel, 1001 Internet Jokes II, which is a contested PROD. bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related nomination (also fails WP:NBOOK)

Strong delete a book "published" by iUniverse, a vanity press or "self publishing company" as they apparently like to put it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LET THEM STAY - In defense, these books are of historic measure because it was one of the first books published to address the subject of internet humour. It opened the door for others to follow. The new addition on gay and lesbian humour marks the first ebook on such humour as verified with Amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. You are also discriminating because "WHERE" it's published? For shame...so if it were HARPER COLLINS it could stay?????. I find that statement below discriminatory.RJG —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

clarification: the comment immediately above was added to the top of the page, so "the statement below" refers to Starblind's !vote

The guideline for notability of books states that "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press indicates, but does not establish non-notability." That is, the books might still be notable, but the fact that they are published by iUniverse is an indication that they probably are not. (However, most of Harper Collins' published books are still not notable, so it's not an automatic thing.) Please add reliable sources showing notability for the books - but note that unfortunately Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com are not considered reliable sources for this purpose. Please read the notability guideline which provides a lot of information about what is required to show notability. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, being published by HarperCollins wouldn't make it automatically notable, but Collins or another real publisher would generally do some amount of publicity for their titles, which would lead to articles and reviews which hopefully would lead to notability/verifiability. Read this for the reasons why vanity and traditional publishers are different in this regard. Also, your claim that this was "one of the first books published to address the subject of internet humour" has got to be a joke rivalling anything in the book. 30 seconds of Google searching found a similar book published (by Andrews Mcmeel!) a full FIVE YEARS before this one. Not enough? How about this one or this one or this one or this one or this one or this one or this two-volume one? And that's just staying within the narrow category of internet joke books, not even counting other earlier internet humour books like Dave Barry in Cyberspace. One of the first, huh? "LOL." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third time, I have been through this and I don’t appreciate it. I find that your editorial people tend to be high minded. With that said, I will QUOTE FROM

Wikipedia:Notability (books) as to where these books are valid on TWO POINTS. Wikipedia:Notability (books) #3 - The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.

http://www.fyne.co.uk in their “NEWS AND VIEWS section address the book as being the first gay and lesbian joke ebook. This has good value, merit and importance to the gay and lesbian community.

Wikipedia: Notability (books) #5 The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

In reference to her kid book, “Wicka, Flicka and JJ “(isbn 1880851059) in the acknowledgement honored D.M. Schwab for sending joke contributions.. This is the source showing D.M Schwab as one of the pioneering people in using the internet in humour. Since this book isn't listed on any website, I can't reference it unless via ISBN which I had to spend an hour finding.

Furthermore, Mr. Schwab was just interviewed by Ivana Tayler (freelance journalist) and when that is posted, we will add it to the wikileaks references. The subject matter was on social media and he explains why he went from publishing to ebooks.

So, both points should give fact that we are in compliance with your guidelines and the books should remain.

This is also very time consuming for me and I don’t appreciate it. I will repeat that this is the THIRD time I had to defend these entries. The first one was giving me more clearer guidelines which I followed which is okay but now it’s getting ridiculous.

Am I suppose to quit my job and watch every entry I do 24/7 to make sure some bored editor wants to go on a power trip make someone’s life miserable?

RG <MAJOR> —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Please try to see it from the reader's point of view for a moment - the person reading the article without prior knowledge of the book (which includes myself and other editors) cannot know more about the books than what is in the articles about them, which means that the claim to notability, and most importantly the sources (plural) that verify that claim, need to be in the article. This deletion discussion should take at least a week, so there is no immense hurry; we're all doing this as a hobby in our spare time. That being said, I did attempt to find sources that would support the books' notability before nominating the two articles for deletion, and unfortunately I did not manage to find anything. On the Fyne Times website, the only mention I find of one of the books is this which unfortunately is not something that would support the claim that the book has made a significant contribution to the GLBT community, or even something that shows notability for it - it is a simple presentation of the book, which looks rather like a press release. As for the claim that being mentioned in the acknowledgments of a book makes the author historically significant, that is not a reasonable claim - if that were the case, every parent, spouse and child of almost every author would be historically significant! And inferring from those acknowledgments that Mr Schwab is a pioneer within the area, when there are no third-party sources that say that he is, would constitute original research which is specifically disallowed on Wikipedia. It is impossible for me to comment on possible future significant coverage; if and when it appears it should be added but please read the definition of what constitutes significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea and other editors, you just argued my point but I want to address and I want to address a few facts that are rather INSULTING too. I spoke with D.M. Schwab and he was quite upset at your statements in particular SELF PUBLISHING. He said that the ONLY reason why "yellow bellied big publishing houses" didn't take his book because they were afraid of lawsuits. After he published his book. When the sky didn't fall they then went ahead and published internet jokebooks.

Bonadea, you argued the very reason why I didn't reference the source because it pre-dates when people uploaded everything on the internet. So, tell me who am I to photocopy and email the sources to???

Secondly, this falls on a holiday which does not give editors time to publish their interviews for sourcing matters. I called Ivana Taylor being that I am THREATENED for removal of stories but she's not in the office today.

I do not know what more to do? This is not playing favourable on my view of unbiased comments.

Bonadea, you mentioned THINK OF THE READER??? well think of me when in this very page an entry notes "self publishing" as an indication of loss of merit? (see starblind's statement) You don't think that is discriminatory??? After speaking with DM Schwab with the reasons why he was FORCED to self publish adds insult to injury. Your policies are discriminatory! For the following reasons (TAKE NOTE) 1) non internet sources are not valid or you don't have a mechanism to site them 2) self publishing has lower merit than major publishing houses (get with the times it's 2011 and most book stores are circumventing publishers and going directly to authors. Publishing houses will be obsolete!!!)

RJG —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

...waaait, hold the phone a second. Are you seriously trying to tell us you're NOT D.M. Schwab / David Moishe Schwab??? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"RJG", if you had looked at the policies linked above as well as on your talk page, which you were asked to read in order to help you edit the article so it wouldn't be deleted, you would have seen that reliable sources certainly do not have to be Internet based. They do, however, have to be actual, reliable sources, and they need to be properly quoted. There is a mechanism to cite such sources, which is also described in the policies you were directed towards - and if citing sources was the only problem you could provide the sources here and somebody would be more than happy to insert the proper citations in the article. Concerning your other arguments, if you want to change Wikipedia's guidelines concerning notability and sources, you have every right to attempt to get consensus for such a change, but this is not the place to do that; the merit of self-published sources can be discussed here. This discussion exists in order to determine whether the two books meet the currently existing requirements. So far there is nothing that indicates that they do meet these requirements.

Furthermore, your most recent post shows that you are closely affiliated with the articles' subjects, and it appears that you may have a conflict of interest. This means that you should avoid creating these articles yourself. --bonadea contributions talk 14:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - No coverage in reliable sources. In particular, there is no signfiicant critical reviews of reception in evidence. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I'm feeling bullied here. AGAIN, I am telling you that there is biased in your approach to self publishing and a double standard. It's clear that you will delete my entries but I want to draw public attention to your actions because I still think they are high handed and biased. When you first gave me corrective suggestions, I did it. When you asked me to look into policies and stake my issues, it did it but it was a complete waste of time. You also set me up for FAILURE because when I site your bias, you ask that I jump over MORE HOOPS and HURDLES to get on some review committee to look at your own short comings. This was not a learning experience, and YES, some of the recommendations earlier were but just a JUDGE/JURY EGO TRIP that I don't appreciate going through. I am not saying some of your points aren't valid but not to the point of deletion. If I were doing thousands of entries, I would see your point but I'm not and trust me, I've read some Wikipedia entries by LARGER entities that don't get deleted but have permanent comments of short comings posted but no ACTIONS by your group to delete them. I guess they donate better than I do. No I am not DM Schwab, he lives in Allentown, PA and I'm in Canada. Do you want his phone number?THANKS FOR THE ADDITIONAL ATTACKS STARBLIND..SHOWS PROFESSIONALISM FOR WIKIPEDIA!!!!RJG —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Something published by a vanity press could still be notable, but it would require significant coverage in reliable sources to establish this book's notability. The lone Gbooks hit shows only that this book exists. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing here indicates this book is notable.4meter4 (talk) 08:25, 26 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) Atmoz (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highcockalorum[edit]

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

Non-notable mess game without significant coverage. The only source is a forum posting. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the barracks, and a request for article creation does not trump the notability and verifiability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference in a more reliable source, namely the book 'Cambridgeshire customs and folklore.'-Krollo

Delete it exists, or at least existed at one time, and that's about all one can say for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ref added since nomination. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable children's game which goes back to the 19th century. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to high cockalorum as that appears to be the more common spelling for the game. [5] and [6] are dictionaries, but both identify the derivation as from a schoolboys game. It appears to be an old game that has gone out of favour which would mean that coverage so online sourcing is probably not plentiful. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some references already found, others will be. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apart from the sources Whpg gave, I found some sources with vague information - [7], [8]. — Novice7 (talk) 12:47, 26 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 per consensus and per CSD A7. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Facebook Professional Wrestling Hall Of Fame[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Obvious self-promotion. Nikki♥311 19:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete web content with no notability asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:WEB. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete just a link to the equivalent of a private blog/forum MLA (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an advert for some shity fanboy site. Lugnuts (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Self-promotional, not notable. The only source is some random link to facebook. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 08:55, 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 Speedily deleted per criterion G12 (deleted by Diannaa). (Non-admin closure) ••pep per 01:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Bowman[edit]

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

Nothing in the article that indicates any notability. JustEase (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks to be a straight WP:COPYVIO lift from this bylined article. AllyD (talk)
Delete due to copyright violation. Thank you, AllyD, for discovering the source. Cullen328 (talk) 23:47, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pdf stacks (software)[edit]

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

This software has no mentions online that I can find, apart from Wikipedia and the official site (although the name of the product is sufficiently ordinary that there are many unrelated hits). Speedy deletion was declined, but I don't see any evidence that this meets the general notability guidelines, nor any reason to believe that it will. Avram (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only mentions of it online are on its official website, the Wikipedia article itself, and, squeezed between about 200 names of other softwares, on four technology websites, with hardly any information about it whatsoever. I believe this article is not notable. 123Hedgehog456 18:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent substantial reliable sources can be found which establish notability.4meter4 (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't locate any significant third-party coverage, only entries in lists of software and the like. Not notable yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 27 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth Sense Theatre Company[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur theater company Calliopejen2 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete school theater clubs are pretty much non-notable by definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet the requirements at WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, school clubs are generally not notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 27 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 incubate. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, this is a large unsourced BLP so I will be moving it to the incubator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Susanne Kessler

Susanne Kessler[edit]

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

Dubious biography by Leda47 (talk · contribs), who seems to be in a conflict of interest. I doubt the subject meets WP:ARTIST. bender235 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has an international exhibition record, including museums, and there appears to be a significant number of publications as well. This satisfies WP:ARTIST. The article needs work, citations to verify the info, removal of the artspeak and so on, but otherwise this is fine. freshacconci talktalk 02:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Freshacconci; needs clean up. JNW (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Freshacconci. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above...Modernist (talk) 16:52, 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) 02:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Dugoni[edit]

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

I prodded this because the league he now plays in and the team he now plays on are not fully professional. Creator agreed to this, but deprodded because: "agreed that he fails WP:NSPORT... passes WP:GNG by being part of a championship-winning team in the US (2010 PDL champs)". Question: how can an amateur football competition be notable, and how can being a team member pass WP:GNG, minding WP:INHERIT? Geschichte (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom, fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in answer to your first question, many amateur competitions are notable. The FIFA World Cup and all it's various age group and women's tournament spin-offs are technically amateur. The Chatham Cup is a probably a more appropriate football example for your meaning. That does not, however, mean that each player participating in that competition is notable.--ClubOranje^T 06:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as stated by nom, notability is not inherited. Without significant coverage or an appearance in a fully pro league, he fails both WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 24 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 merge to Selena. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Selena Foundation[edit]

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

I can't find any independant sources that discuss this foundation to confer notability. Angryapathy (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Selena. I agree that the foundation in and of itself does not meet the General Notability Guidelines, and of course notability is not inherited, however, the foundation did generate some interest on its own right, as shown here [9], enough so that I believe a Merge/Redirect of the pertinent information to the Selena article is warranted versus a delete. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a redirect to keep the info, but believe that it does not warrant its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sounds fair...I'll synopsis the piece and add it to the Selena article under legacy. If at the conclusion of this AFD, and there are no objections at the Selena piece, I'll redirect The Selena Foundation over. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Selena. "Selena Foundation" yields almost 50 hits at Google News[10], so there's enough sources to support a sourced paragraph about the foundation, perhaps at Selena#Legacy.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:26, 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. If someone wants to move this somethere let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utah scholarships[edit]

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

This is, in part, a directory. It's also a how-to guide on finding scholarships. Not really encyclopaedic. c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 17:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is a how to guide, and mainly WP:OR. Angryapathy (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How-to-guid, essay, OR. 123Hedgehog456 18:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One more editor agreeing that this is a non-encyclopedic how-to guide. Useful in other contexts, but not wikipedia. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikibooks at least as a part of general Scholarship guide. I agree, this is something that does not belong on Wikipedia. BTW, How-to guides are permitted on Wikibooks. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:55, 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) 02:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T-integration[edit]

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

Non-notable. As explained in Talk:T-integration, the subject of this article appears never to have been described or cited in any reputable source except for sources written by the algorithm's author, J. M. Smith. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if T-integration is "notable" or not. I created the Wikipedia article many years ago, when I was part of a project to have a Wikipedia article for every topic on Mathworld. Mathworld has an article on T-integration here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/T-Integration.html . My inclination is that more information is better than less, and I have not seen any indication that T-integration is incorrect or useless, only that it is not famous. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mathworld article was co-written by the originator of the T-integration technique, J. M. Smith, so it is hardly independent evidence of notability. (Nor does the Mathworld editor, Weisstein, have any particular expertise in numerical integration.) Whether it is correct or not seems irrelevant to this discussion; Wikipedia should not have an article on every academic paper in existence, only subjects that are notable enough to have been covered in reputable secondary sources. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding the claimed utility of the technique, the fact that apparently no expert in numerical integration uses "T-integration" should give you pause. The nice thing about Wikipedia's policies, however, is that we don't have to argue among ourselves regarding whether a technique is useful compared to competing numerical methods; it's enough to judge whether the technique has...or hasn't...been judged notable by reliable published sources. And a technique that is never cited or mentioned by anyone other than one person has clearly not been judged notable.) — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Correct" or "useful" are not, of course, valid criteria to retain an article. That this subject fails of notability is another matter altogether. Ravenswing 10:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Math project did, at one time, have a listing of articles from MathWorld to be added to Wikipedia. I believe the current consensus is that an entry in MathWorld does not imply notability in the WP sense because MW often uses neologisms and has a tendency to have separate, short articles where WP guidelines would have a single, longer article. Notability issues aside, the article seems to be copied from the PDF given at the External links section, and would have to be rewritten anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDBury (talk • contribs) 19 February 2011

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Celeste[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The sources in the article are the subject's own site, a couple of YouTube videos, and three listings at discogs that merely mention the name "Celeste" as credits. A Google search produces the usual list of the subject's own site, FaceBook, MySpace, blogspot, promotional sites, listings, Wikipedia - the sort of stuff which always exists for non-notable people in the music business who are keen on promoting themselves, but I have not found even one case of significnat independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:Music.4meter4 (talk) 08:30, 26 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love: Part II[edit]

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

Contested PROD. PROD rationale was "WP:HAMMER, essentially. The only concrete details that exist about this are its title and the fact that it's not coming out anytime soon. Details on the concept are already at Angels & Airwaves & Love (Angels & Airwaves album)." I still stand by that rationale. There is very little verifiable info about this future album other than 1) it's a sequel to the previous album, 2) there's to be an accompanying film, and 3) it's not coming out anytime soon. Each of those things is already said in the articles about the band & the previous album. It's too soon for an article about an album if the only detail that's known is the title. IllaZilla (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Put simply it fails WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.4meter4 (talk) 08:31, 26 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. NW (Talk) 01:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylterusten virus[edit]

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

Original Research and unencyclopedic. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator is correct. Unreferenced and made up Cullen328 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is based on the source of the person who made up the term. Angryapathy (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, barely exists. Geschichte (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the assessments above. Pichpich (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disinfect Breach of Jante Law #5. Who is this Alday to believe he knows more about jelly rust than us? ^walk victor falk^talk 04:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Darksideofnorway Editor. Allow the world to recognize the social cultural issues between one individual from one culture integrating with another culture. These events are real. The preserved rust is social culture that attempts to damage a person's cognitive being in order to preserve a social structure. Breaking the social structure or the social construct can be seen in Alday's work such as yteachMe. —Preceding undated comment added 09:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC).
Delete Cobblers (to put it politely). Peridon (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original reesearch. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Chinese origin[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion based on WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I like this article. It is also on an important and interesting subject. I love words and dictionaries and enjoy browsing through dictionaries to learn new words and more about the meaning and origins of words. What this article is is the result of people going through a dictionary and picking out tidbits and presenting them to us on a plate. Good work and enjoyable to read. However WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. An article on the influence of Chinese culture on the West would be vital to an encyclopedia. Also articles on the development of languages and the process of words being adopted by one language from another would be important. But articles on the meaning and origin of single words belong in a dictionary. Taking a number of them and putting them on one page does not change that, it seems to me. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.
Keep. Personally, I would transwiki the main list to Wiktionary if it is not there already, move this to a better title such as Chinese words in English, and flesh out the introductory paragraph and bullet list into an article discussing these several sorts of cultural contact in a historical manner. Until all of that has been done without loss of data, this article is a start towards that goal, and should be kept. I don't see a slippery slope here, that some day we might end up with articles on Volapük words in Nahuatl or what have you; and if there verifiably are any Volapük words in Nahuatl, let that article be written too. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, as suggested by Ihcoyc. The list itself can probably be replicated by a Wiktionary category, but the general topic is encyclopedic and more than just a list of words can be written. This is essentially what I did to Chinese classifier (which used to be just a list; now that list is at List of Chinese classifiers, which is probably also a good candidate for wiktionary). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not a dictionary. It shows something interesting about the English language and its propensity for incorporating words from all over the globe (rather than translating them). It is important to have such a list because so many items are not easily identified as Chinese (or even of non-English origin) because of (1) spelling differences depending on which romanization system was used by whomever dragged the word into Engish, (2) regional variations in vocabulary and pronunciation in Chinese that are so great that the same word as represented by one Chinese character might easily be brought into English twice even if the same romanization system were used. It is also important because seeing how much in the English-speaking world is derived from Chinese tends to ameliorate some of that world's cultural chauvinism. It's also worthwhile because it is fun, and encyclopedias do not need to eliminate things that are fun any more than they need to eliminate explanations that are easy to understand in favor of explanations written at high levels of abstraction.P0M (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I also !voted "keep", I would like to respond to this. Articles are not kept or deleted based on whether they are WP:USEFUL or WP:FUN, or on whether the article itself is an example of some broader trend. (And this article doesn't show anything about English's "propensity for incorporating words from all over the globe", only about its borrowings from Chinese.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Ihcoyc, I think the actual list should be transwikied to Wiktionary (unless it's already there) and the introductory section and beginning list cleaned up and turned into an article with a name like Chinese words in English, possibly with a bit more information on how they got there, perhaps? The history of the transferring of words from one major international language to another is, to me, notable and worthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia. 123Hedgehog456 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does not look like a dictionary entry to me though it is a coherent set of such entries together with a substantial relevant commentary. As such the article rather well fits "things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by" which is how WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary determines suitability for Wikipedia. Anyway, I am not at all sure Wiktionary hosts articles like this: indeed, I wonder if the folks there would say it belongs in Wikipedia. The Wiktionary category linked to from this article refers back to the current article for more details. I think it should stay here. See wikt:Category:Chinese derivations. Thincat (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reasoning. I agree that an article on the topic of English words from Chinese would be a good topic for an article, if there are sources that discuss the topic itself -- not just if examples can be found. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question: To what extent are glossaries accepted in Wikipedia? Is there a specific topic range, or is it something else? For instance, some might argue that List of medical abbreviations is highly encyclopedic, but others may say that it is a list of jargon. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of medical abbreviations is not at all an encyclopedia article. However it is very useful to have if a person is looking for a specific item. On the other hand this article is closer to a proper article since it is making a larger overall statement. However I don't think it's likely that anyone will have a word in mind and come to this list looking for it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with much of what's been said, especially by Smerdis, Rjanag, and Hedgehog: the list should be moved to Wiktionary, but the lead and the first section contain the germ of a Wikipedia article. Wiktionary does indeed host material like this; see for example Wiktionary:Appendix:Spanish words of Italic origin. I disagree that the list itself shows something interesting or inherently important about the English language, and Wikipedia should neither synthesize a conclusion about what that something is nor collect the data from which others may do so. Still, my suggestions add up to a keep !vote, since renaming and splitting are handled outside of AfD. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Perhaps, rather than making it a list, it could be an article with a bit more prose, that includes a few examples. Information can be made encyclopedic, it just depends on how it's brought across. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a list is not a dictionary. Besides, where can you find a dictionary that only lists English words of Chinese orgin? This article does not duplicate info from elsewhere. The introduction discusses different routes the words reached the English language is encyclopedic. I don't see what rationale started this proposal. Kowloonese (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment see wikt:Appendix:Spanish words of Italic origin 65.95.14.96 (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
copy to wiktionary as wikt:Appendix: English words of Chinese origin ; Wiktionary has such appendices. Whether it should also exist on wikipedia - no opinion. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep etymological articles are encyclopedic. The English language is filled with words from other languages. An article about the Chinese language influence on the English language might be better but this one is not bad. MLA (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone involved in linguistics in China this is one of the pages I visit most on Wikipedia. Unfortunately it's in a gap between the scopes of WP and Wictionary - the detail and organisation are too narrativized to fit into a dictionary, but it remains what it is, a list of words. While I'm for keeping it, it does raise a greater issue re: Spanish words of Italic origin, etc, the argument obviously being "where does it end?" I'm glad that this has come up because it's an opportunity for WP to clarify the scope in this area. Two solutions have been offered above - transferring this kind of thing to wiktionary and keeping it here. Can I offer a third - we decide on a different set of guidelines for articles relating to the English language to the standard for other languages. This may seem like an unreasonable bias, but let's not forget that this is the English language WP. It's more reasonable for an encyclopaedia to include analysis of the language it is written in than to cover every permutation of different languages. I'm not saying that this is the solution here, in fact on balance I'd tend towards including all, but it's a valid alternative to be considered. Bienfuxia (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Transwiki and delete, Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary. >Radiant< 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from Nom My nomination was not based on any lack of importance or interest of the topic, but on the unsuitability of the format as a list of dictionary entries. If "WP is not a dictionary" I don't think a list on WP should be a mini-dictionary. As for the topic, an article on Chinese influence on the English language would be a good thing I think. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no difficulty with this (having voted keep above). References would be a great asset and not merely as a gesture towards wiki policy. It would be nice to keep track of the actual words but the link to the Wiktionary category achieves this. Thincat (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would merely say that this article should be deleted if it's against policy. However, it is clear non of the other "english words of " east asian languages are slated for deletion it seems unusal and biased. I would ask why Nom did not go after any of the other languages like japanese or korean in this instance. Wikipedia should be very careful not to drawn into a "cultural" flame war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.91.252 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I nominated this one is that it was presented as an example in another discussion. I would be happy to nominate, or vote to delete, any other articles of the same type. I also share your understanding that China is one of the most important historical centers of human civilization. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note If you nominate a bunch of articles at a time people will say, "Why did you nominate so many?" If you nominate just one they will say, "Why did you nominate only that one?" :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was defending myself against what I understood as the charge of prejudgice against the Chinese in favor of the Japanese and Koreans. I still uphold the position that lists of words, with their meanings and origins, belong in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment In that case I would like to change my "keep" !vote above to "strong keep" since I would not want a conceivable deletion here to set any sort of precedent. Doesn't look anything like a "delete" close anyway but you never know when closing administrators feel they have divine guidance. Thincat (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. Couldn't have the backstory/introduction on wiktionary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have a dictionary that includes essays on the history of the English language. (Not that I expect this statement to sway the discussion.) :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but does wiktionary do it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 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 redirect to Clan (computer gaming). The article still exists in the page history, should anyone wish to include the information in another page. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multi Gaming Clan[edit]

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

Non-notable Neologism that is not backed up by reliable, published sources. Teancum (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am confident that the information presented is true, but it is really such a minor topic. Besides not being backed up by published sources. Better to just mention this aspect in Gaming clan. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is just a lengthy statement that "a multi gaming clan is a gaming clan for multiple games". Not a potential encyclopedia topic or even a potential dictionary definition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule Team Delete: Err, let me see ... an article about these tiresome "gaming clans," sourced by their own websites. EPIC FAIL of any manner of verifiability or notability. Ravenswing 10:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability. 'Multi-gaming clan is a group of people that play computer games' = not notable. MLA (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Clan (computer gaming) or other suitable target instead of delete. The concept or topic itself exists, several independent groups use the terms "multigaming clan" (394,000 ghits), "multi-gaming clan" (268,000 ghits), "multigaming team" (100,000 ghits), "multi-gaming team" (15,000 ghits). The material merged would need to be properly sourced, but that is cleanup. [11] refers to Team Dignitas as a "multi-gaming team". The The Book of Games Volume 2: The Ultimate Reference on PC & Video Games uses the term "Teams or Clans" and has no mention of "Multigaming" or "Multi-gaming". Google Scholar finds the German paper Jugendliche Gemeinschaften in der virtuellen Gemeinschaft-Eine qualitative untersuchung der Counter Strike Clans with "Multi-gaming clan". Apart from that one book I could only find German and English books with: "clan", "gaming clan", or "team". -84user (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to clans if it cant stay on its own page please.

Hi guys, I started the page Multi Gaming Clan as its a large part of online gaming for a lot of people. i feel the subject has a place on wiki and should stay! Look at the stats for how many people search for multi gaming clans and teams and you will see its a widely used and search term!

If your that unhappy about it having its page please advice on which page you guys think it would be better moved to and I will copy it all over to the correct parts of said page. I.E. start a section for multi gaming, move external links to correct part, add resources etc.

Thanks for giving me the chance to keep the page/content as I have worked hard on this page and I think I have done quite well for my first page on wiki GSL-Nathan (talk) 13:00, 24 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. A sentence or two added to the existing mention in Hervey Bay, Queensland would be enough. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hervey Bay Triathlon[edit]

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

Failed PROD. Article fails to meet guidelines presented in WP:NSPORT - games or series and WP:EVENT. Questionable notability outside local media coverage. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 14:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage outside of local interest. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to find a decent ref outside the local paper Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the section on sports in Hervey Bay, Queensland. All the coverage that I can find comes from the local paper. However, this coverage is significant, and sustained over a period of years, and as such, demonstrates that it is notable in a local context as a sporting event and as such, a merge is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 08:33, 26 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 deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laptop Geeks[edit]

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

Self-presentation of unnotable company JustEase (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced, and no claims in the article which would indicate that the subject would be notable or why it is important. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ((db-corp)) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:55, 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 keep: he has permission to copy: see Talk:Winter Harbor 21. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Harbor 21[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete "copyvio of http://www.chaptertwocorea.com/News/Entries/2009/5/24_Winter_Harbor_Knockabouts.html ", but he says that he has permission from the copyright owner: see Talk:Winter Harbor 21. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:39, 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. Tone 21:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Gung Gar[edit]

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

Non-notable martial arts school. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability, just another martial artist's school. MLA (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unsourced article that gives no reason why its subject is notable. My search found nothing that shows notability or independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. Astudent0 (talk) 17:11, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goreti Venkanna[edit]

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

Not sure if this meets WP:CREATIVE. Let's determine here. bender235 (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tending towards keep based on the coverage cited in the article, which doesn't describe the subject in depth but indicates that he is sufficiently important.--Michig (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i believe he makes the cut because of the AP govt Kalaratna award, his books and his role as the script writer for a mainstream film--Sodabottle (talk) 14:20, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre[edit]

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

Massacre is a dictionary word, not an article name.

The article has been created by moving Massacre to Massacre (disambiguation) and copying the lead from List of events named massacres. The evidence from the two AfD's and many archived pages under talk:List of events named massacres that is word is hopelessly open to POV and the agreement from the last two AfDs was that the name List of massacres shoudd be moved to List of events named massacres and since that time massacre has been a disambiguation page.

See

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres, 8 December 2007
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) 22 February 2008

Look up massacre in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

So I propose we delete this new page (as it is a copy from the lead in List of events named massacres nothing is lost), move the dab page back, and leave the definition of massacre to wiktionary PBS (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The move of "Massacre" was to Massacre (Disambiguation) instead of to Massacre (disambiguation). This has now been cleaned up at 04:03, 18 February 2011 LadyofShalott deleted "Massacre (disambiguation)" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup) and at 04:45, 18 February 2011 Geniac (moved Massacre (Disambiguation) to Massacre (disambiguation); but the article "Massacre (disambiguation)" that was deleted had a history of 32 edits. So if the new article at massacre is deleted, the content of "Massacre (disambiguation)" should be moved back to "Massacre" and the history of "Massacre (disambiguation)" should then be restored. --PBS (talk)

Comment some text that was added to the text copied from the lead of List of events named massacres was a "See also" section which demonstrates what a POV nightmare this word is, as it demonstrates that the creation of the article has introduced a bias. Who says that a massacre is a "disaster" or a "tragedy (event)" it depends on ones point of view. For example the very first use of the term as mentioned in the OED (its coining in English) was the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, for Protestant Europe it was a "Disaster" and a "Tragedy", but for the supporters of Catholic France it was neither. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article, as it currently stands, is about the word "massacre" (its meaning, first usage, etc.). It should be deleted per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I might change my opinion if it can be shown that the article has a realistic potential be turned into a neutral article about the concept of "a massacre". However, I do not know if there are sources to support such an restructured article. Unfortunately, what I expect will happen to this article is that it will turn into another POV slug fest... as various POV editors attempt to add OR "alternative definitions" in an attempt to justify using the label "massacre" to describe events discussed in other articles. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a stub, not a dictionary entry. It contains information that would not be found in a dictionary. Wikipedia can indeed have encyclopedic-quality articles about words describing they way they are used in society. This article has a lot of potential for expansion too. Also, there are hundreds are pages in different namespaces that link to this one, referring to the concept of a massacre, so deleting it would create a lot of red links in places where currently, there are lots of blue links of the term leading to this meaning. Shaliya waya (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Well he would say that, wouldn't he?" (Mandy Rice-Davies), because you moved the old article history to a new page and created the new article! Deleting this new article It will not create any red links because the dab page you moved will be moved back. BTW There are hundreds of links "in different namespaces" but the vast majority of them are talk page links. There are at the moment only 48 articles linked to the Massacre page, which would have been delt with in the usual way that dab page links are dealt with, but to speed up the process I will run AWB over those so that they link to the wiktionary:massacre article. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In anticipation that this becomes the dab page it was, there are now no article links to Massacre. -- PBS (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a dictionary item. There is nothing wrong with that but it belongs in Wiktionary not Wikipedia by policy. Note that the article is about the word "massacre" not about incidents when large numbers of people are unjustly killed. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and the trouble is that unjustly is in itself a POV perspective. As far a Cromwell and his adherents were concerned killing those in Drogheda were justified (s:Cromwell letter to William Lenthall) this is an ongoing and now nationalistic and also academic argument about 350 years old. The problem we had with list of massacres was that it was too subjective. The solution was to create a List of events named massacres, named in two or more reliable sources. It is still far from perfect, because if someone calls it the slaughter of the innocents or the Dresden holocaust the it does not make the list so the list is very arbitrary if one is looking for a list of massacres. My real concern with this article is that it is the seed for a new POV list of massacres which we know are not possible to create without endless arguments. -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of some of the massacres that have happened, makes it all too tragically necessary for there to be some sort of page here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about articles on each incident, articles on the wars and conflicts in which they were involved, murder, mass murder, civilian deaths in war, state murder, genocide and a few more? Then they will be documented here and discussions about the meaning of the word "massacre" will be avoided. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitfoxxe, FYI we have civilian casualty ratio. Anthony aside from the dictionary definition, what do you think can be added to this article that is not in List of events named massacres? -- PBS (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a dictionary definition, and one that is essentially duplicated on List of events named massacres. I'm not seeing the potential for expansion, but maybe someone could make explicit what potential they see? Cnilep (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel Warden has effectively deleted the article I suggested should be deleted. His new article seems appropriate for Wikipedia. Cnilep (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We do not improve a topic of this kind by reaching for the dictionary or the delete button. Nor should we just compile a catalog of examples. The best approach, for our purposes, is to find sources which address the topic in a general, scholarly and analytical way. Such sources exist for this topic and I have started a rewrite, citing two of them: The massacre in history and Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide. We have no dictionary content or sources now and so we should hear no more of WP:DICDEF please. That policy clearly explains that we may have short articles as stubs which we may expand and develop over time. Deletion would be disruptive to this and contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what you put together was a complete synthesise, the three authors are not using the same definition for massacre. And it is likely to remain a sysnthatis without a precise definition for massacre. It is difficult enough with a term like genocide which has a precise definition to write an article that does not have too much synthesis in it, but with massacre there is no agreed definition (as your first citations shows). The first citation does not support that definition it is supposed to support. Jacques Semelin writes that "massacres can be difficult to investigate because they are often done secretly" were Cromwell's massacres done secretly? Was Peterloo a secret massacre? Massacres are done for many reasons and secrecy is not a common factor. I am not sure what the point of the Ronald A. Francisco citation was meant to prove about massacres. --PBS (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many or most topics have some natural variation. For example, see Death#Problems of definition which explains some of the difficulties of defining that topic. This is no bar to our having an article upon the topic. In such cases, we should use a corresponding variety of sources and present a balanced summary of their positions. WP:SYN states, "... this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view". Colonel Warden (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 14:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - So many reasons to delete. Firstly, and most obviously, WP:DICDEF. Colonel Warden's additions of irrelevant sentences haven't changed the fact that this article attempts to define what a massacre is, in my opinion. Secondly, this article is a content fork of various articles. I don't believe it's possible to create an article here that includes information that isn't already available at Mass murder, Genocide, List of events named massacres, and so on. The problem is that "massacre" doesn't have a clear definition distinct from "mass murder", they are synonyms. "Massacre" is just a POV term that people apply to an event when they want to describe it in a more emotionally charged way than "mass murder". My suggestion would be to delete this article, move the dab page back here where it was, and add a link to Mass murder and List of events named massacres to it. SnottyWong ^chat 14:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICDEF states that "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions". WP:MOSBEGIN states that "The first paragraph should define the topic". The provision of a definition is therefore to be expected and is therefore no reason to delete. Secondly, WP:CFORK states, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". The supposed content forking is therefore no reason to delete either. Note also that other topics such as Mass murder or Genocide are not quite the same because massacre includes animals while they do not and so there is not a clear fork here. Thirdly, the sentences added were not irrelevant because they address the topic directly and are supported by sources which address also the topic directly and in detail. It is our policy to keep such content, not to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom, fix the fork. >Radiant< 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and DICDEF--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If kept, this article is likely to be the source of endless disputes and edit wars. Others have given plenty of reasons to delete. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article could even provoke an edit massacre. SnottyWong ^gab 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't forbid articles or destroy existing ones simply because some might have disputes over them. Any article involving Israel or Palestine has endless disputes, as do other things, but we don't eliminate them. Dream Focus 18:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - at the moment, yes, this article is a bit of a WP:DICDEF. However, it does have some information besides the definition, and the fact that books have been written on the subject suggests that it could be expanded into a longer article. (Compare, e.g., Mass suicide.) But I'm sympathetic to those who say such an article would probably end up duplicating Mass murder and List of events named massacres, and if this article can't be expanded it should be merged into one or both of those. Robofish (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like it is now sourced now and more than just a dictionary definition. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIts a notable concept, books written about it. What causes it to happen, what the United Nations tries to do to prevent it, etc. A lot of information could be added. Dream Focus 09:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of these points, at all, is ever trying to argue that this should be deleted because no one has written about massacres. No one's that dumb. Please don't bring that stock argument into every AfD.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Click the Google Book search at the top of this AFD. It finds "About 2,030,000 results". Many books are published about different massacres, what lead up to them, and their aftermath. I'm certain the United Nations and various nations do study these things, to understand them better and help prevent them. Economic embargoes and even military actions have been done as a result of massacres. Dream Focus 17:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misinterpreted my point. No one here is saying that there are no books being written about massacres.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, misread that. Anyway, I'm pointing out it has gotten ample coverage in reliable sources. That's how you prove its notable. Coverage in the news or books or scholar, etc, thus the reason we have those search items at the top of the AFD. Dream Focus 17:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. But this isn't a delete based on notability or lack thereof, it's on whether this should be a standalone article, a section of another article, a redirect, or whatever. No one would ever try to argue that the concept of a massacre isn't notability, just that having an article would always be too POV or have too murky of a definition and coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The definition is rather clear. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/massacre "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty". And if reliable sources call it a massacre, then information can be placed in the article from those sources. I don't see as how this would be a problem. If the article meets verifiability and other policies, and it clearly passes the notability guidelines, then there is no reason to delete it. Dream Focus 18:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is a massacre sufficiently different from a mass murder that it requires a entirely separate article devoted to the subject? Yes, there are a plethora of books written about various massacres, all of which already are (or should be) discussed at List of events named massacres and/or an article on the event itself. SnottyWong ^chatter 19:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article at Mass Murder list other things, such as serial killers, people blowing up trains full of people for fun, terrorist bombings, etc. The word massacre is used in the media for school shootings, killing of peaceful political protesters, as well as genocide. ~~Basically its the same thing, so I agree, best to just have that information there then.~~ Dream Focus 19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what the article is now, I'm back in favor of keeping it instead of a redirect. There is can be content in each article which doesn't overlap. Dream Focus 00:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see it has been improved since the nomination (not that that makes a difference -- we !vote based on what support exists for the notability of the article, not on the basis of whether it is as of yet reflected in the article).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is your argument for retention seriously "Keep. Massacres are notable?" Bulldog123 09:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple reliable sources covering the effects and history of massacres, such as The Massacre in History, Massacres: An Account of Crimes Against Humanity, From Massacres to Genocide: The Media, Public Policy, and Humanitarian Crises, and Massacres: A Historical Perspective; this does not include the myriad of books covering specific massacres as well. In addition, such a basic topic is necessary to include in an encyclopedia—even if it is currently a definition only, we are expected to include such a key topic. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the most delete !votes are correct in that the article currently looks similiar to a WP:DICDEF and if expanded it will face issues with WP:POV and WP:SYNTHESIS. Arguing for deletion of these ground is a little bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water, saying that it's impossible to write an encyclopedic article with the title 'massacre'. Since there's no problem with the notability of the subject, why not give this stub a chance to develop and deal with the problem as they arise? jonkerz ♠ 20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above votes. I could see this being recreated anyway within a week if it was turned into a redirect as people would wonder what the heck was going on with us. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a dab page for many years so there is no reason think that it will be turned into an article again any time soon. -- PBS (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's currently a stub but there is the potential for FA content and length. Even before the word was made there were numerous massacres in history, and in the fields of psychology and anthropology, it's an under-appreciated aspect of human behavior. A big problem will be finding someone to volunteer to write it devoid of POV. But how can we have a List of events named massacres without exploring the concept of a massacre? Boneyard90 (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is a massacre? The term was born a a propaganda tool by Protestant Europe and it is still used as a propaganda word that way (there are many more precise words and phrases that can he used in its stead). At the top of List of events named massacres we have a dictionary definition of what a massacre is at the top of (which was copied into this new article). But one does not have to have a definition to add an entry, all one has to have are two reliable sources that call an event is named a massacre. That was the whole point of the name change from list of massacres to "list of events named massacres" so that we did not have to have to use a definition because it proved impossible to agree in general what a massacre is. -- PBS (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that all those who are arguing for keep, will place Massacre on their watch list and participate in the endless talk page disputes over what is suitable content for this page and are not irresponsible vote Keep and then leave it to others to try to keep the page encyclopaedic and within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. -- PBS (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing these types of AfDs, it's going to be the latter. Bulldog123 09:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Phillip and Snottywong. Though I don't think there really needs to be a parent article for this, if we were to have one it should be called Historical massacres or Massacres in history or perhaps even Massacres (plural). Amazing how all these !keeps are making points like "massacres are notable." Yeah, we know. That's not what this article is about. All it does is "define" massacre and add little factoids here and there about the origin of the word. Bulldog123 09:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See WP:BEFORE #2. "Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered." There are entire books, works of scholarship, etc. written on the idea of a massacre. In time, as this article is given a chance for more editing and discussion, all of this should show up. Apparently, since the nomination, some information that could not be found simply in a dictionary entry has been added with sources. How much more can you expect in the future? If this article is deleted, it would have to be recreated completely from scratch. But if it is kept, it can be improved using the information and sources already in it, and this is valuable information for the article's future. You can't forget the purpose of Wikipedia. Is it to provide useful information to the public? Or is it to bicker about what belongs and what doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.107.171 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you normally edit as another user? I only ask because, while I do want to assume good faith, it's always a bit odd when an IP !votes in an AfD as one of its first few edits. But hopefully my suspicions are wrong.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I edit under various many IPs in the Charleston, SC area, mostly public hotspots, coffee shops, libraries, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.107.171 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the same user who !voted here: [12]. The IPs are sort of similar. Bulldog123 09:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable topic supported by multiple reliable references. This article is currently a stub and needs lots of work, but improvements can be made. This is not a good candidate for deletion under the nom's reasoning. Even a further discussion of the word's etymology would go beyond wikitionary's limited capabilities and add beneficial information to wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a further discussion of etymology would certainly be something for Wiktionary. It's just that most wiktionary entries aren't as in depth as they could be.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:11, 25 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Smoluk[edit]

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

Minor film-maker, at best, not even famous regionally. CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable individual who has the recognition of his peers and who meets WP:GNG. Notability, even if only to Canada, is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Am fixing the ref format now, as it has been made "somebody else's problem". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's there's no evidence of 'recognition of his peers' except in the most narrowest of senses, at best, not to mention that his 'notability'--if real, which isn't convincingly shown either--is not even to Canada but to his hometown. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Hometown'? Winnipeg is the capital and largest city of Manitoba, Canada, and with more than 60% of Manitoba's population, is the primary municipality of the Winnipeg Capital Region. The Winnipeg Free Press is one of the major papers serving that region (not a pamphlet or throwaway)... and not limited only to Manitoba, is available accross Canada (much like the New York Times or Chicago Sun being available outside those two US 'localities'). Wikipedia does not demand that a Canadian notable receive world-wide coverage, and it would be expected that a Canadian notable would be covered in a major Canadian press. His significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources is exactly as guideline instructs for ascertaining notability. Its not as if we're speaking of a local gardener receiving a one-liner mention in a neighborhod gazette. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage to show that he's notable, in Manitoba, at least, and that the article passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:13, 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. Tone 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music Is Revolution Foundation[edit]

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

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of an organization.

Prod was removed because cites were added. Three are from the company (doesn't exactly prove notability) and one was from a student paper, effectively a gig listing.

The best claim to fame is having semi-notable people involved. tedder (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per wp:crystal. Not currently notable and notability from the bassist is not inherited 7 06:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited. There's no indication the foundation itself is notable. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found one press citation [13] that may provide significant coverage about the foundation; that's probably not enough to establish notability. Sounds like a worthwhile foundation and kudos to the people who are doing it, but it doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 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) 02:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Filotti[edit]

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

An admirable career, but the GScholar hits aren't there. Neither is there any indication he may meet any of the WP:PROF criteria. And no, signing an appeal, delivering lectures at a summer school or serving on the foundation of an obscure board do not boost one's claims to notability.

Let me also note that this forms part of a wider pattern of cruft on the Filotti family: see this discussion, this one and this one for more details. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gs shows one old paper with 77 cites. Not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He has a good academic pedigree, papers in good conferences (and they're on topics of great interest to me; I've cited one of his papers in one of mine) but I have to agree with Xxanthippe that in retrospect they haven't had a big impact, so the case for WP:PROF#C1 isn't there. "Director of research" at CNRS sounds more impressive than it is (there are very many people with that title, it's not at the level of distinguished professor etc). And the social activities seem non-notable too. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note that we could in theory RS his political views, but, goodness, this is not a valid bio entry, not per GNG and not per PROF. My 2 cents. Dahn (talk) 04:25, 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 redirect to X&Y. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What If (Coldplay Song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song; fails WP:MUSIC. Another version of this article was redirected to the album after an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What If (Coldplay song). I have twice restored the redirect to the album, and twice been reverted. ShelfSkewed Talk 05:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. No evidence of notability, but the appropriate remedy per WP:NSONGS is a redirect to the album. The redirect page can be protected if necessary if reversion is a continuing problem. Rlendog (talk) 02:10, 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. Tone 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zetadocs[edit]

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

Seems to me to fail notability criteria; virtually all sources are directly linked to the product's manufacturer. There is a single independent source, a 2005 review from PC Advisor, but to my mind this doesn't rise past the bar of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. Bringing it here for discussion. MastCell ^Talk 05:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Advertisement (provides a range of solutions to organizations) for more non-notable office software. Reviews of releases, written roughly concurrently with the release, do not necessarily establish significant effects on history, culture, or technology, unless they also establish that the products rise so far above the run of the mill that they have long term historical notability. Nothing here makes such a case for this software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 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 delete. Scott Mac 18:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Howard[edit]

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

No apparent notability. Much of the article is essentially just advertising for his business. OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:52, 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 merge to Silat. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silat Cekak[edit]

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

Another non notable martial art without third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Silat I firmly believe this art is notable, although you can't tell it from this unsourced article. Rather than leave this article hanging around in the hope that someone will improve it someday, I'd prefer to see it merged. If someone wants to then improve it and make it a separate article later, that would be fine with me. Papaursa (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Silat I got lots of ghits, but it was hard to find independent articles in English. However, when I started looking at Google translations of articles in Malay, I found enough to convince me of the art's notability. The existing article needs significant improvement if it's to be kept as a separate article. Otherwise, merge it into the article on silat. Astudent0 (talk) 17:02, 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. Tone 21:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bakti Negara[edit]

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

Another non notable martial art without third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest the nominator take a little more time with WP:Before. 48 hits in google books, for example: Weapons and fighting arts of Indonesia By Donn F. Draeger p168--180

[14], and there are more. Also, many hits in newspapers in Bali, but my Javanese is not good enough to translate. Francis Bond (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that there appear to be enough reliable sources to show this art is notable. The existing article needs a major upgrade, but the sources exist to do it. Papaursa (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of sources out there that shows this meets WP:GNG. However, the article needs to incorportate some of those sources. Astudent0 (talk) 17:08, 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. Tone 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persatuan Gerak Badan[edit]

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

Another non notable martial art without third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just some martial artist's school, not a martial form. MLA (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources to support the notability of this organization. The sources were either wikipedia mirrors or connected to the organization. Papaursa (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found coverage of this organization, but none of it was independent or showed notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:32, 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. Scott Mac 18:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Gardens[edit]

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

Not a notable organization. After going through 12 pages of Google News hits, I can attest that they provided pots for a museum. They also sell synthetic wicker, a 13 pound pruner, Growing Success Advanced Slug Killer, and a handsome trellis. The only notable thing is this housing development mentioned in the article, without a source, for which there is a kind of source here. I propose that none of this is in-depth discussion of our subject in reliable sources; notability standards are not met. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Non-notable landscaping and gardening supply business. No showing that they have had significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:11, 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. Scott Mac 18:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James A. (Gene) Thomas[edit]

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

There's no doubt that he took part in a notable event, but that isn't a notability criterion, and he hasn't received significant coverage sufficient to pass WP:BIO. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find lots of sources quoting him in his capacity of launch director, but I was only able to find this article which is significant coverage about him. That's not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 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. Scott Mac 18:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Sloan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR. Not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Her work is notable, just not notable enough to meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. It is possible that I am missing something in her biography, but I do not think so. --Crunch (talk)
Delete. Agree with nom. GS h index = 6. Not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think she passes WP:Author #3 as a person who has created significant work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Have added some refs to selected publications to support this. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have tried to tidy the article a little: There are now 3 secondary sources reviewing one her books, 3 reviewing another and 5 reviewing one of her novels. Her film also has a secondary source. There is also an interview with her in the Southern Scribe (January, Vol. 6, No. 1 2005). (Msrasnw (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Don't appear to be reliable or independent... Abductive (reasoning) 12:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why might The Journal of American History, The American Historical Review, and Film Quarterly, for example, not be considered reliable or independent? (Msrasnw (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Those are journals that published her. I'm referring to "sources" such as Barnes & Noble Discover Great New Writers, sources about her. Abductive (reasoning) 13:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have misread how these sources are being used in the article. The citations in these are to reviews of her work. I have also added the PBS bio details to those from Southern Scribe and Women Make Movies. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Has an h-index of 3 or 4. There are 129,000,000 million books in the world, and about as many authors. No reliable, independent secondary sources treat this person. Abductive (reasoning) 03:46, 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) 01:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music Aid[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 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) 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This is a proposed group of concerts on each continent, but only one act is confirmed. No news coverage could be found. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. All sources are the subject's own web sites. Kudpung (talk) 01:41, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecam[edit]

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

Dubious (and unsourced) claim to notability: reads more like an advert (until I cleared most of that away). Editing history reveals an IP editor (173.196.178.186) who edits almost nothing except articles about this site, it's founder and it's parent company. The edits have consisted in adding reams of PR cruft, as well as reverting the advert tag on the article. Google News brings up no mention of the company from a reliable source: it only brings up aforementioned PR cruft. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's an awful lot of news coverage relating to the Obama streaker incident. No mention of this in the article, so that certainly needs to change.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability MLA (talk) 21:41, 12 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) 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seems to fall a bit short on notability. bobrayner (talk) 09:08, 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 no consensus. The discussion tended towards delete, but I don't feel that consensus was reached here. The discussion didn't fully engage the issue as to the individual articles; not prejudice to a focused renomination as desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Capulín[edit]

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

All appear to fail WP:ATHLETE#Boxing Travelbird (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALL The problem is not with these articles. The problem is with the boxing guidelines at WP:ATHLETE#Boxing. I've initiated a discussion on the talk page to get the guidelines changed so that these articles are not deleted. Some of these boxers are national champions and the others are all medallists at major national events. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I nominated them, they did not yet have the info on having won national championships. This was added subsequently to the nomination. However most of them still only have claims to junior championship medals, which is definitely not enough on its own to establish notability.
At the moment:

Adrián_Hernández_(boxer) was NABF Light Flyweight champion, but according to WP:ATHLETE#Boxing this is not considered significant enough as the NABF is not one of the major world bodies.
According to information added subsequent to nomination, Ignacio Esparza did win the WBA Championship and thus should be kept.
All others online won/competed only at junior levels and thus are not notable on that basis alone. Travelbird (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL The argued reason for notability is based on amateur performance, not professional. WP:ATHLETE#Boxing does not apply to amateur notability, only professional (hence why under the 'Professional' heading). Clearly, based on their amateur accomplishments, these athletes do not meet WP:ATHLETE.

As a side, Ignacio Esparza did NOT win the WBA World Championship, but instead won a WBA regional belt (apparently the WBA Fedebol cruiserweight title). Thus should be deleted. RonSigPi (talk) 04:24, 12 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) 01:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon further review, WP:ATHLETE states that there are two ways sports figures are presumed notable (under Generally acceptable standards). The first prong is met by meeting any of the qualifications in one of the sports specific sections (such as WP:ATHLETE#Boxing). As my comment states above, the guidelines are only for professional boxers, thus the national amateur titles/medals you discuss are not relevant. However, there is a second prong is met by having participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics. I believe competing at the World Amateur Boxing Championships would meet this prong. Many of the boxers you list are merely successful junior athletes to this point of their career. For example, Oscar Andrade was merely a cadet national champion (cadet is usually younger than junior, so probably age 16 and under) national champion. If any of these fighters won senior national championships for Mexico, then there is a good chance they fought at the World Amateur Boxing Championships and thus are notable. If you can establish that a fighter did fight at the World Amateur Boxing Championships, then that would save that article from deletion. However, merely winning a junior national medal (even gold) is well established in WP:ATHLETE as not being enough for notability.RonSigPi (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doing well at pre-adult levels isn't enough for notability. Olympians would be notable. The World Amateurs is a notch below and is an arguable case. MLA (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why are you talking about "World Amateurs"? I took another look at all the articles listed above and they are undefeated PROFESSIONAL BOXERS with national titles. One of them was a reserve at the Olympic Games (when he was an amateur) since only amateurs can compete at the Olympic Games. Are you aware that your nomination will delete 12 boxing pro articles in one wholesale move? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it would be better if they are nominated individually. Regardless of the specific boxing guidelines, a few of them may meet the GNG guidelines.--Pink Bull 01:10, 28 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. Tone 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer County, New Jersey Bus Rapid Transit System[edit]

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

Non notable bus system proposal that does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 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) 01:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is better covered in county article if anywhere.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:59, 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. Tone 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burzinski[edit]

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

French musician who's not even notable for the French Wikipedia. Certainly does not meet WP:NMG. Also, main contributors Laurentsanchez (talk · contribs), Burzinski (talk · contribs) seem to have a serious conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 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) 01:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current usage as the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines for musicians. Alternatively, restore the version prior to 23 April 2009, when it was a redirect page onto another person's biography. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 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, with no objection to merging any relevant information and creating a re-direct. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La Garenne School[edit]

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

The article does not seem to assert any notability, and a lack of gnews and generally google hits for the school indicates the schools fails the ~~WP:SCHOOL~~whoopsWP:ORG policy. From the article, the school is roughly equivalent in terms to ages to a middle school, and thus does not enjoy automatic-highschool-notability. The article is also completely unreferenced.

On a fixable side, the article is written in a spammy manner by an SPA. Virtually all content edits (which include removal of COI/Advert maint tags were either done by As.Director (talk · contribs) or two IPs. OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Point of order: There is no policy or guideline called WP:SCHOOL. Many proposed policies and guidelines have failed to gain consensus. WP:ORG and WP:N are the relevant guidelines. In addition we can look at common outcomes for the defacto consensus that elementary schools typically get merged/redirected to the school district while public or large provate high schools get their own articles. Edison (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but do remove the promotional elements from the article. As an international school and a boarding school, this is not a run-of-the-mill elementary/middle school that is merely of local interest. It recruits teachers from the UK (here's a recruitment ad) and its students presumably are mostly the children of families living as expatriates in or near Switzerland. It's listed in travel guides (for example, according to the "families" tab on this page, it offers "holiday courses" to the children of families visiting local ski resorts) and guides for expatriates; I imagine that more substantial third-party coverage will turn up with a little effort. --Orlady (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am neutral on this one, as I suspect Orlady is correct and that sources will turn up. I am too busy to look. However, I want to urge that this article is looked at very carefully from a copyright point of view. The very first sentence is almost the same as a sentence on the first page of the school web link in English. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is blatant SPA spam, or at least an example of how the Wikipedia has been confused as being one of the hundreds of promotional school directory web sites. The school is WP:ROTM and offers absolutely nothing that most schools of this kind do not already propose for their students, and almost all recruit their teaches 'direct from the UK' or other ntive English speaking countries, and advertise their jobs in the TES and other educational media. Therefore it does not, and cannot stand out as being notable. Tourism guides and directories, and job ads have never been considered reliable sources. We'll be getting asked next to accept [this] and the 114 other similar sites as a sources. Merge and Redirect. Kudpung (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query: What article would you merge and redirect this to? --Orlady (talk) 23:50, 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) 01:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable primary/middle school. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create redirect to Villars-sur-Ollon. Really, the "merge" is to have a line indicating this school is in/near the town. tedder (talk) 01:21, 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 merge to General Motors EV1. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General Motors Impact[edit]

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

This is just an essay/content fork of EV-1. tedder (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is content fork; fails WP:ESSAY; has serious WP:POV issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the page may be a content fork, however it does have specific information about the concept car (Impact) that does not affect the EV-1. It also does not have WP:POV issues. Everything it talks about is neutral and factual that has supporting quotes and information from the people talked about.Electric Car Guru 23:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge rather than delete, (WP:FORK). This appears to be a content fork but it contains information that can be placed in the EV1 article. Also, I agree that this article is written in a neutral tone, and is factual. With a few more sources, and maybe some copy editing, this would be an acceptable article for Wikipedia - except that it appears to be a content fork. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:18, 16 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) 01:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sounds notable, but merger with Ev-1 seems logical way to organize.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are some useful details here to merge back into the EV1 article. But I believe this article does have significant NPOV issues. There are many, many details which are not to be found in any of the linked references. And there is a hint of a conspiracy theory about the demise of the EV1, for instance, when the article asserts that "The company openly stated in several press conferences that they were not entirely pleased with having succeeded in making a practical electric car." This sentence is not only not supported, but actually refuted, by one of the sources listed, where executives are quoted at a press conference as supporting its production for mass markets. This is not to say that the article's assertions are false, but they need more support. My guess is that the overall structure of this article is inspired by the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car?, which is mentioned in the opening paragraph. That may be a good thing if it's a reliable source but if so it should be referenced. NeilK (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it has POV issues, not NPOV issues

tedder (talk) 19:10, 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 no consensus. Scott Mac 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MARSEC-XL[edit]

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

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)).

It looks like this article went unsourced for several years before being deleted under the WP:PROD process. I see it has been undeleted as a contested prod, but it still lacks reliable independent sources verifying the notability of this subject, and I was not able to find any appropriate sources to add with my own search. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guideline for organizations. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't consider this article in The Malta Independent significant coverage because it's essentially a copy of a press release. All the other links just posted are to press releases on corporate sites. (The page was created by a single-purpose account Kissia. The restore was requested by another SPA Kissia13 who identifies herself as executive director of MARSEC-XL. I was the one to PROD the article.) --Pnm (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MARSEC-XL is an existing, viable and operating Foundation established in Malta. There are numerous references supporting this fact. MARSEC-XL is listed in the European Cluster Observatory http://www.europe-innova.eu/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=148901&name=DLFE-9316.pdf

Malta College for Arts, Science and Technology, MCAST, writes about MARSEC-XL in The Official Magazine of the Malta College for Arts, Science and Technology, Issue 28: http://www.mcast.edu.mt/mcastlink/mcastlink_28.pdf

Continuous attempts to delete the MARSEC-XL page from Wikipedia are viewed as a malicious act against MARSEC-XL Foundation and its activities aiming at promoting openness in the maritime industry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kissia13 (talk •contribs) 10:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Kissia13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

MARSEC-XL is truly the innovator and not the imitator, helping to unite the marine industry, enabling the vessels of tomorrow to be greener and based on high quality software solutions, which will help everyone linked to the industry, it being a super yacht owner, captain on board a container ship or a deep sea exploration diving team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailaholic (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Sailaholic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This cluster of excellence aims at bringing the whole marine industry together to contribute in a joined effort to improve and provide software based solutions that everyone can benefit from. — comment added by UmanLee (talk • contribs) 17:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — UmanLee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: looks like this has attracted a relatively large contingent of SPAs... whether these are sockpuppets or meatpuppets is a matter for someone else. I am not concerned with notability so much as the fact that this and the related Marine Software Engineering really are borderline WP:G11. l'aquatique[talk] 16:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MARSEC-XL is an EXISTING and REAL entity dedicated to open source initiatives. MARSEC-XL is a not-for-profit foundation publicly scrutinized and operating under the laws of Malta and the European Union. MARSEC-XL is supported by governmental entities and is of significant importance to the country of Malta and the maritime industry. This information is publicly verifiable by reliable sources and information provided as references includes such sources, e.g. a public college in Malta and the leading independent maritime publication in Lloyds List and others. Based on the recent incidents on Wikipedia aiming at deletion of both MARSEC-XL and Marine software engineering, the MARSEC-XL team has conducted a thorough research and web search to defend our TRUE identity as we suspected some other entity tried to hi-jack it. Today it has been found that indeed there is an entity which has stolen MARSEC-XL name and definition of Marine software engineering. Here is the truth: MARSEC-XL is not promoting any product, entity, or the like. The name of MARSEC-XL foundation and term Marine software engineering defined by MARSEC-XL through their extensive research since 2007, has been STOLEN by an untrustworthy entity with locations in Mauritius and Germany. This entity presents itself as a publishing house. This entity has published a book "Marine Software Engineering, MARSEC-XL, Software Engineering, List of Software Engineering Topics" with a mark stating the following: "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA Articles" - ISBN-13: 978-6133190320. This book is a hoax and is NOT in ANY WAY to be associated with MARSEC-XL, marine software engineering as defined by MARSEC-XL or any entities associated with MARSEC-XL Foundation located in the county of Malta. The editors of this publication are NOT in any way associated with MARSEC-XL Foundation, Marine software engineering, or Malta. It looks like it is WIKIPEDIA that has a serious problem here as it seems that this publishing house copies the (non-copyrighted) contents of articles on Wikipedia and then sells it as printed material. As a result honest and truthful Wikipidia contributors are becoming victims and the name of MARSEC-XL as well as Wikipedia is publicly dented. I sincerely trust, that Wikipedia will be able to distinguish between the truth and the thieves. I hope that Wikipedia will take action and protect themselves and their contributors for the sake of the truth on the net. --Kissia13 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is interesting. I did not realize "Betascript Publishing" was printing bound editions of Wikipedia articles. That would not meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable independent source, since it's simply a printed copy of the Wikipedia article. Have any real publishing houses ever written a book about this subject? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 22:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I reviewed the sourcing already int he article, and they are almost all regurgitated press releases which do not establish notability. However, the Times of Malta appear to have covered this with multiple article over a period of time: [15], [16], [17]. The article is very heavily promotional and will need severe editting, but there's enough coverage for me say the topic is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Poor article with overly promotional tone, but there does seem to be the necessary coverage of it, even outside the press releases. Mind you, when did journalism become so lazy? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 15 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) 01:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - it's spammy and portions are copied from press releases. The entire #About section is copied from the last paragraph of http://www.liveyachting.com/intellimare-marine-software-systems-for-mariners-by-mariners ... the last paragraph of #Facts about MARSEC-XL ("MARSEC-XL has identified a lacuna in the marine systems and software engineering ...") is verbatim from paragraph six of http://www.sunseekersym.com/news/newsitem.php?id=173 . Wikipedia isn't a place to publish your press releases. --B (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not a press release. It is journalist who are growing lazy by copying each other's text into their "own"articles and so the same message is repeated multiple times on the net. It is enough that somebody said something smart or good and it gets repeated all over again. Here is an independent one: http://5956n.typepad.com/59_56_n/2010/10/whose-ship-is-it-anyway-a-five-part-investigative-series.html. There is a reference to this article in the External links section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kissia13 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You already posted something above apparently as a keep !vote. If you would like to add comments, please frame them as such by starting them with "Comment:" or it will appear that you are trying to post multiple !votes. l'aquatique[talk] 18:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another independent investigative article by Ed Slack, Superyacht Business, September 2007 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/USP_Port_Superyacht_Business.tiff --Kissia13 (talk) 15:57, 24 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theam[edit]

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

Non-notable company The Cavalry (Message me) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOBILITY, I cannot find any sources on this company, no coverage at all. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 02:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This business designs and manufactures mixer mounted concrete conveyor belts. No showing that this business has had significant effects on history, culture, or technology. More nonsense about being a "global leader", which seems to be the go-to phrase when you want to claim to be big or important but don't have any concrete evidence to back up a claim of actual importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability. Includes unsubstantiated business advertising speak like "global leader". OSborn^arf_contribs. 21:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing !vote as the article has been greatly improved by Nihola. OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A large international company, seems to be an important co. in the concrete building industry, having developed technology designed for large building foundations. I edited down to a small stub, formatted, added some references.Nihola (talk) 04:02, 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) 01:06, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateration[edit]

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

Neologism or possibly just incoherent summary of a subject which has no real sources. Googling for the name or anything related to RTLS specific to the terms in the article just gives wikipedia and mirrors. the article was originally PRODed but it was contested. Protonk (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I found it used as a technical term in a handful of articles on Google Scholar, but these don't seem to discuss the concept itself as a topic. No references have been provided to reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Knovel.com can't find anything with this keyword. IEEE Explore can't find anything in 2,866,227 documents (no hits at all in two tries, and I cut and pasted the word to make sure I was spelling it correctly).( There are 1704 hits on Explore for "real time locating system", though...it's not like IEEE is ignoring this topic, but the term just isn't used by people writing about RTLS) --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:07, 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. I accorded greater weight to the arguments that sources were lacking. Certainly, if sources exist to create a proper article at Ghattekulo, there is no prejudice to doing so. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Banesore[edit]

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

A search for references found no support for the content of this article. Web is all mirrors and gBooks is no hits, fails WP:N and WP:V, prod removed with comment "Removed Prod - WP:V is an issue but with a geographic area this should be discussed (or speedied if a hoax) rather than prodded"[18] JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm having trouble figuring out what this article is supposed to be about. A city? A district? A region? A geographical feature? It looks like a bad translation from something. --Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Ghattekulo, the neighbourhood of Kathmandu that the article is actually about. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:00, 9 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) 00:04, 10 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note recently added content is WP:OR working with the author to find sources User_talk:RajeshPandey#Mid_Banesore, I check the alternate spelling provided, and did not find good sources for "Mid Baneshwor" JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:59, 24 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) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Thomson[edit]

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

Concerns over notability. Levinge (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has had a number one hit in Malawi (and if we consider this relatively, Malawi is not a big country and there are few avenues of getting heard...also consider some one hit wonders get pages in the US, I dont think we should penalize countries based on land mass).
If a musician has two songs on circulation on MTV and Channel o (whose satellite distribution is in almost every African country), I think the geographic reach of the audience makes him meet notability.
He was featured on the finale of Big brother Africa, the most popular reality show on the continent. They weren't just going to pick anyone. --MsTingaK (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Malawi charts don't seem to be reputable per WP:GOODCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to ignorance. The Malawi charts are not included in GOODCHARTS. Anarchangel (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While good sources are few indeed, there is substantial evidence that he is a major star in Malawi, and noted in other African countries too [19][20] Julius Sahara (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To comment on Malawian charts being reputable: All the charts on the link are for European, Latin American and US charts and have no relevance to African or Malawian music because those charts dont typically rate/rank African (much less, Malawian)music. It would be bias to thus rate Malawian charts reputation based on a list that only includes non-Malawian non-African charts. If a musician is getting air time on African and Malawian charts, then his music doesn't need to be relevant in the west. As an example, there are Us singers and/or celebrities (ie Kim Kardashian, Kelly Pickler) or other singers who only are relevant in the U.S but have pages.Using that list as a guideline for reputable charts can create a systematic cultural bias for countries not listed.--MsTingaK (talk) 01:06, 5 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) 00:05, 10 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Julius Sahara above. Manning (talk) 23:42, 24 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 Non-admin close, Nominator withdrawing deletion request, no outstanding delete recommdations, redirecting to Gopal Godse. ~~ GB fan ~~ 11:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhutai Godse[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is the wife of a notable person. Notability is not inherited. I can not find significant coverage of her in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ 01:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 4 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) 00:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gopal Godse. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 16 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:15, 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 soft delete; no keep !votes but insufficient participation. This deletion therefore counts as a PROD and may be reversed on request. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection (Klymaxx album)[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Allmusic has only a directory listing. Prod removed without comment by IP. Precedent is that compilation albums have to show standalone notability, which this does not — it never charted, it wasn't certified, wasn't reviewed, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is eerily familiar to the Scorpions article AfD'ed the other week. Same argument, no standalone notabillity, delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 4 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 10 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Vander Klok[edit]

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

Vander Klok has not been the subject of coverage sufficent to satisfy the general notability guideline, and I can find nothing to indicate notability under the guideline for authors. Google only returns a few mentions of his books and coverage from sources related to his church and TV show. A Google News search returns some very brief mentions in a local paper, but no significant coverage. -- Lear's Fool 05:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 05:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 05:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 05:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 06:20, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 10 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Published works support notability Rirunmot (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Qworty. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 21:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Being a published author does not establish notability, especially when there does not appear to be any independent critical review of the books in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 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. NW (Talk) 01:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HelpSpot[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB [CharlieEchoTango] 06:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 4 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable product. Advertisement. MLA (talk) 22:27, 12 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unreferenced and no real indication of notability. It should be noted that there was an initiative called "HelpSpot" by Gateway Computers awhile back, which did receive media coverage, but this product appears unrelated as far as I can tell. --B (talk) 22:52, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben_Kull[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ben Kull

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

Nomination for deletion: Non-notability. Having a credit on a TV show does not equal notability per se. Would need coverage of the subject apart from just the credits. Sparkleatom (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — Sparkleatom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I can find are listings which credit him for his work. There is no substantial coverage about him, nor any indication of awards or other critical acclaim that would distinguish him. As such, all I can verify is that he is a working writer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be anything about him online beyond inclusion in program credits. If the shows he worked on have staff lists in their articles, that's where he should be. 69.230.72.45 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Not notable. 64.81.36.52 (talk) 09:34, 25 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 Karadağlar. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Payidar Köyü[edit]

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

Fictional town with no particular notability. Content should be merged with Karadağlar Travelbird (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Without prejudice as to the notability or lack thereof of this topic, if this article is to be merged to Karadağlar, as proposed, the page should most definitely not be deleted but instead be made to redirect there. So either Keep, or Merge and redirect (for which no AfD case needed to be opened). --Lambiam 15:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The link in the article makes no mention of Payidar Köyü, although it does turn up a lot in searches [21]-- köyü means "village", and payidar seems to translate as "enduring". Apparently, it's not a significant enough part of the show that there's a lot to say about it. Mandsford 20:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the page, and naturally think it should be left alone. Mandsford, there is a link to Payidar Köyü in the Karadağlar article, but I'd translated the "Köyü" part into "the fictional village of", as you are right in seeing "köyü" as meaning "village of". I thought this translated form would read better in English. "Set in Payidar Köyü" would mean little to a non-Turkish speaker unfamiliar with the series, and "Set in the fictional village of Payidar Köyü" looked wrong to me, as it repeats the word "village" twice, albeit in different languages. The latter could be used though, as the familiar from of "Sahara Desert" does after all mean simply "desert" in English followed by the word for "desert" in Arabic. As for there being not "a lot to say about it", I don't have too much time to spend on the Wikipedia each week, but I do intend to expand the article later on with details as to the significant buildings and people in the village. As for it not being "a significant part of the show", the each episode is either set in wholly it, or mainly in it with some extra scenes in the countryside around it. Bukalemun3 (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Mandsford is referring to the external link to the article on the Çanakkale İçinde website, found under References. This is indeed not a good link for verifiability purposes (Adatepe and Yeşilyurt are mentioned, but not Payidar) – let alone for establishing notability. --Lambiam 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karadağlar. --EEMIV (talk) 15:17, 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the sake of building a consensus. Inadequate sourcing to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:07, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMD (album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL: No indications that this album will actually get produced. Track list is pure conjecture. There is a conjectured tracklist at songlyrics.com but no reliable source to verify it (or even that any album will be made). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SOAD are back together, and are likely to make a new album at some point, but this particular album does seem to be entirely conjectural.Bjones (talk) 08:01, 12 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like speculation at best...although on a google search, I did find the same site mentioned above, but it seems questionable. Furthermore, the user who made this article seems to like to make disruptive edits, based on his/her edit history, so I call BS.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:37, 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.