< 3 February	5 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I-League 2010-11 match results[edit]

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

Excessive listing of match details for a football league season, violates WP:NOT#STATS. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These results dont need to be in a seperate article, they can be summarised in a simple table in the main article. Eddie6705 (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Excessive detailing of something that is already sufficiently covered at 2010–11 I-League. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I-League results should be treated no differently than those of any other sports league, and although keeping track of game results is analogous to jaywalking when it come to WP:STAT, the other unwritten rule is that we don't allow multiple versions. In looking at the editing history of 2010–11 I-League#results, I'm satisfied that it has multiple contributors, and the person who created this article is just as welcome to edit that as any of Wikipedia's other I-League fans. Mandsford 00:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nom says it all really, no need for a seperate article. Giant Snowman 19:45, 6 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) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Krstić Crni[edit]

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

Unable to find any coverage. His stage name translates to Black which makes finding Serbian sources particularly difficult so if someone has more luck than me I'll happily withdraw this nomination. The Serbian Wikipedia is no better. J04n(talk page) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Had no luck finding sources either, save for a single passing reference, to an appearence in a list of names at an event called Barfest 06 [1] But I acknowledge some of the same difficulties the nominator notes, additional sources, as always, welcomed. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 23:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am also unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this BLP. Tooga - BØRK! 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. No standing delete votes. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Meirelles[edit]

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

Putative Miss Brazil Universe 1987, which would be a reasonable statement of notability if I could find a reliable source that backs the assertion. There's a fair number of wikimirrors in the web results, it's quite possible I missed something, so if you can find a WP:RS. j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The snippet search results in this book confirm she was Miss Brazil in 1987. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough, I've added it to the article and I withdraw the nomination. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 15:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Communist Party of Yugoslavia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/New Communist Party of Yugoslavia (2nd nomination)

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

This political party does not exist any more. It was deleted from the Register of Political Organizations on 23 January 2010 because it did not renew its registration (see: The list of deleted parties). There is no proof of the notability of this party (See: Wikipedia:Notability (political parties)). The party has never been part of any parliament or government, nor it has any other importance that fulfill the notability criteria Vanjagenije (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible bars for articles relating to political parties and their youth sections. Even defunct organizations are part of history, Wikipedia is not a registry of current political organizations only. Given Yugoslavia's communist past, information about subsequent communist organizations is apt to be of interest to researchers. Useful information in this article would be lost by deletion without any compensating improvement of the encyclopedia project as a whole. Carrite (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The party is not defunct, it just lost its registration. NKPJ has been active for some 20 years now, and has emerged as a referent in the international communist movement. Not a particularily large party, but definately deserves its own article at wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedia is a place where history is recorded. Defunct parties are part of Yugoslavian history, and therefor, keep. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:01, 6 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 List of numbered roads in York Region. T. Canens (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

York Regional Road 71[edit]

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

Should be merged to List of numbered roads in York Region, where it was previously merged. All appropriate content was merged to the list, no need to retain unneeded content in the merger. Imzadi 1979 → 21:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of numbered roads in York Region. Road does not meet notability guidlines, article is a directory, and is only sourced to an atlas (yet contains relatively little information that would actually be found in an atlas). Poorly maintained and organized, no merit to a standalone article at this time. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per nom. Dough 48 72 21:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of numbered roads in York Region. Article does not meet the WP:GNG as a standalone article, and if this was a U.S. Road, would not pass the U.S. Roads General Notability Guideline. Admr Boltz 03:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is ridiculously non-notable. NBeale (talk) 16:34, 13 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 Palmistry. Feel free to merge any usable content from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kabbalistic Palmistry[edit]

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

Not entirely coherent or complete text dropped here as one of only two contributions by the editor. GBooks search returns exactly one hit, a 2008 book. Regular google returns more but almost entirely from blogs and the like. Notability is at the least highly questionable, and in any case it appears impossible to rescue the article using reliable sources. As far as I know even Hermetic Qabalah has no use for this sort of fortune telling. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. If there is any good content in this article it should be merged, as a subsection, in to Palmistry. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect to the main Palmistry article. The nominator obviously lacks a deeper insight into this subject, and the mere fact that there is a full-blown article about Palmistry on Wikipedia disproves him. This is not just about "fortune telling" per se, it's about an esoteric practice. Googling for "Jewish Palmistry" yields some good sources from palm reading sites, so obviously this is a genuine, albeit esoteric topic. No need to wipe it out because it sounds unfamiliar. IZAK (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palmistry is also thin on the ground in sourcing, but I have confidence that this could be overcome. In the case of the present article I have no such confidence; it's not even clear that the content would end up having anything to do with palmistry. I'm not adverse to someone writing an article if that person comes up with sources, but what we have now is written on the authority of a single person with no references to tell me that the subject is even legitimate, much less to back up the specific claims. If you can do better, the article awaits you. Mangoe (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mangoe, seems you just don't like the topic, and kindly note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete. Far better to put various "under construction" templates on this page per ((Citation needed)), or "needs expert input" per template ((Expert-verify)), as well as noting WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment A bit of further research discloses some references to chiromancy in Jewish culture; these references, however, have not identified the practice with the Zohar of other works of its period or tradition. If someone wanted to write chiromancy in Jewish culture or some such article, it's clear that it could be written at least as a stub. Mangoe (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Mangoe. Let's not get carried away. The topic under discussion is the Jewish view of Palmistry via the Kabbalah. IZAK (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Look, if you can write it, then do so. If we delete this article and then someone writes one that actually has a place in an encyclopedia, that's fine. The problem at the moment is that even if the subject is legitimate (of which I have yet to be convinced, and the way to do that is to produce at least some article that I can identify as representing the subject even vaguely accurately) I don't see anything better to do with the material we ahve now than to toss it and start over. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Mangoe: I have a different approach to such things. My solution in this case would be either to trim it down and make it into an acceptable stub if the material is too "abstract" so to speak, or to contract it and add it as a sub-section in the main Palmistry article. It's a tough subject, but as I have pointed out it exists and should not be lost. As you know re-starting deleted topics is an extra hurdle for article writers. There is no point of threatening me or getting impatient as that achieves nothing. I have started working on it by Wikifying it, but it still needs work. If I were you what I would have done is first started a dialogue with some some editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, gotten some feedback and seen if some good can come of this article. Instead all you are doing is exhibiting impatience and frustration, virtually "ordering" me to work on it "or else" and alleging that this is a non-subject when you don't strike me as being an expert about such topics. So try practicing some WP:CALM and take it from there. IZAK (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I spent 20 minutes with Google Books and came up with a list of English-language sources which discuss Kabbalistic Palmistry as described in the Zohar. I'm sure there are more in Hebrew for those who can translate. The article needs a good copy-edit and additional research work, but the subject is valid and should be kept as a page. Yoninah (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to a subsection of Palmistry. Build up content there using independent scholarly sources that report the subject rather than fringe sources that promote it (such as Rosemary Guiley). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woodfield School[edit]

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

Non-notable local British school with large WP:COI problems. Qworty (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conflict of interest issues are not a reason for deletion. This is a High School so it is likely that it will be notable. I suggest a search for sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a special needs school. 25% of all the students are autistic. Any school that can handle that many autistic students has to be notable. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 13:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:NHS. All high schools are assumed to be notable. --Crunch (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Article exists since 2007, is a high school and is de facto notable. Nominator has proposed this article at AfD because they assumed a legitimate government inspection grading to be promotional. In doing so a very important source was also removed. I have reverted the edit. Kudpung (talk) 20:19, 7 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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Uru[edit]

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

Athlete with no evidence given of notability Yaksar (let's chat) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, world champion in rowing. Inwind (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to his multiple world championship medals, the subject has competed in the Olympics, meaning that he meets WP:NSPORTS. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Participated in the 2008 Olympics for New Zealand (to which I added a reliable reference), which easily meets notability requirements at WP:ATHLETE. Ravendrop (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He won a gold medal at the world championships and competed in the Olympics. Obviously passes WP:ATH. --Crunch (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As world champion athlete which I will note was in the article at the time of nomination in the medal table. A very obvious keep that should never have even made it to AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Easily meets Wikipedia notability guidelines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 02:50, 8 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lluís Marsans[edit]

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

Notability--can't find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage on this Catalan artist, but I recognize the difficulty of finding appropriate Catalan sources. Note that this is ca:Lluís Marsans i Julià, not ca:Lluís Marsans i Sola or some other ambiguous luís Marsans's. The Catalan wikipedia does list an (↑ Tharrats, Joan Josep. Cent Anys de Pintura a Cadaqués. Barcelona: Parsifal Edicions, 2007, p. 210. ISBN 84-95554-27-5. [modifica]) offline source), which certainly exists--but I can't even verify that the word Marsans appears in it. That Catawiki entry also EL's a gallery bio (not inherently reliable for contents), which, if I take at face value doesn't quite make WP:BASIC and would be, lacking more WP:RS, a long way from WP:ARTIST. Additional sources welcomed, thanks! j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 20:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC) striking delete !vote per the references found, is his first name spelled properly in the article? The 2 L's is what threw me off. J04n(talk page) 22:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it's a close call as there are so few sources available. Marsans had 14 works in the exhibition Representation Abroad at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden in 1985, and the text of the catalogue provides enough information about the artist for a meaningful stub article. When John Ashbery reviewed the exhibition for Newsweek he devoted a few lines to Marsans, and he later included the review in his collection Reported Sightings. One of the two dozen or so color plates in the book is a still-life by Marsans, which gives him particular prominence there. A few other brief but nontrivial mentions in RSs can be found, as here, here, and here. Ewulp (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw my nom based on Ashbery and the NYT, LAT refs, I'll drop you a note to see if you might assist me updating the article with respect to the former, since I can't seem to manage the text of either the Newsweek issue or the compilation on-line. --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 16:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll add what I can based on notes I took at the local library over the weekend, and I hope to have a bit more next week. The artist's name seems always to be spelled "Luis" in the English-speaking world, and a move is in order per WP:NAME. Ewulp (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks muchly! I'll move the article (if it hasn't been done already.) --j⚛e decker ^{talk to me} 02:32, 10 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 Renal failure. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 23:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anephric[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF states that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and according to the banner at the top of the article, the contents have been moved to Wiktionary already. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIC, already copied to wiktionary, delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to renal failure which is much the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:17, 5 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 Caltron 6 in 1. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Carpet 1001[edit]

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

Non-notable game, and the game is already mention on the Caltron 6 in 1 page. SSFF6B (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, badly written, no sources and not notable seperately from the cartridge which already has a page that more than adequately covers this.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caltron 6 in 1. Not enough coverage (actually none) for it to stand on it's own. --Teancum (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Caltron 6 in 1; I don't think there is really any relevant content in the Caltron article which needs to be merged. –MuZemike 01:03, 6 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. CSD A7 IoS not asserted. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort (music)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no reliable, second pary sources to sastify WP:V. Also possible promotional material. Acather96 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 doesn't even claim any importance, never mind backing it up with citations of which there are none. Delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 - No indication of why the band is important or significant.Aspects (talk) 19:23, 5 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wright's law[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can find no evidence that this term even exists. The sole source in the article doesn't provide any evidence, and despite the article creator's assertions that the term is notable, failure to find reliable sources to back that up claim otherwise. Time was given for more sources to be added, as per the talk page, but none have been forthcoming, so I have sent the article to AFD for discussion among the community. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To start, this is based on a presentation by Wright at Toorcon 11, but what Wright actually said (To date, vendors haven't taken ZigBee security seriously due to the lack of attack tool availability. It's not going to get better until we have a practical attack surface.) is not only different, but furthermore so specific that one wouldn't call it a "law". (ZigBee is a suite of wireless protocols that has some serious security issues.) Further, although indeed some graduate students called a variant of this pronouncement "Wright's law" (see their presentation at ShmooCon 2011 at 00:09 seconds), for now this is a neologism for which there is no evidence it will catch on. Of course, there are plenty of unrelated things called "Wright's Law", some of which are clearly more notable. --Lambiam 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After doing some further...ahem...research on this I have found that this term came about at a conference for hackers, therefore I request that this article be speedily deleted as a neologism. I am unsure about removing the "willhackforsushi" link as I am unsure about promoting hacking sites/groups, someone else can tackle that bird. What I AM sure of though, is that this article was created in the hope of "promoting" this term, which is why this AFD should be closed and the article deleted, the sooner the better. ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is not noted in the above comment is that this conference comes from ShmooCon, a highly respected industry conference on computer security, not a "hacker" conference in the sense of the word you are thinking of. Furthermore, the website "willhackforsushi" belongs to a respected computer security expert who does fully legal penetration testing and security research working for a respected company and also as an instructor for the SANS program. In summary, the "willhackforsushi" site does not promote "hacking sites/groups" in the sense you are thinking of, but instead only promotes informational discourse about legal security research. This term has been referred to many times, and this entry serves as a useful resource for people seeking to learn about this term. If you would like more citations to such uses, then request those, but do not try to remove an article due to a misunderstanding of the word "hacking". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.210.198 (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — 129.170.210.198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment You are going to have to come up with better sources than YouTube vidoes. NBC? CBS? CNN? BBC? Any local news coverage, other than Dartmouth? I looked at the ShmooCoon site and I from what I saw of the video, I believe it is a term made up by two college students (Rmspeers perhaps?) that is trying to use Wikipedia to get it to "catch on". Sorry, but that is covered by neologism. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ShmooCon is a much more reliable source than mainstream news. NYT, CNN, and other such news venues consistently misreport on technology issues. ShmooCoon is a well respected security conference and thus a good source such computer security related topics.Bx.s (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC) — Bx.s (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - I see no coverage in reliable sources about this. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think people are a missing what a "reliable source" is. Let us look at ShmooCon, the source of this information, and look at the type of speakers there and their credentials. ShmooCon 2011, this past month, had Mudge of DARPA coming to speak to the assembled "hackers" about the need for them and their skills in the national defense. Two other past speakers included Prof. Avi Rubin of the electronic voting analysis fame (and book) from Johns Hopkins and Prof. Matt Blaze, respected UPenn researcher in computer security. I encourage anyone worried about "reliable sources" to look up these people as examples of the type of expertise ShmooCon brings. This article is about something within the security community -- do you really expect that CNN/BBC would cover such things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.210.198 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In response to Whpq and the above comment, I suggest one reviews the following article (Moss appointment) to understand a little more about what a "hacker convention" brings to the table in terms of expertise and reliable sources. Here is one excerpt: "Jeff Moss, founder of the Black Hat and Defcon hacker and security conferences, was among 16 people sworn in on Friday to the Homeland Security Advisory Council. The HSAC members will provide recommendations and advice directly to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano." I feel that there is some misunderstanding among some of the commenters above on what reliable sources in the computer security discipline are. If the US government is looking for people running this type of convention to report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, then perhaps these conferences should be considered reliable sources. Rmspeers (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Valid question here - is this term covered BY NAME in-depth by any source? If not, then it passes WP:MADEUP. Therefore the burden is on the article creator to come up with diffs that support the notability of the phrase. That is the crux of this discussion. Furthermore, I feel that the two keep !votes have a vested conflict of interest as they are both based at Dartmouth College. ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This conference invited the world's leading security experts. Wikipedia can neither validate nor invalidate them. I'm not sure what kind of "source" you would consider appropriate, but this is the only source that should be considered reliable for the topic being discussed. It is silly to not accept a source because it isn't part of the popular media. At the very least, there should be an article on Joshua Wright which would include a section about his law as well as a report on his other contributions to security research. Anniid 03:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniid (talk • contribs)
Whether the person Joshua Wright meets our notability criteria and should be the topic of an article is an entirely different issue that is not under discussion here and has no immediate relevance to what is being discussed here. Regardless of the status and importance of ShmooCon, its founders, and so on, the fact remains that the term "Wright's law" is a neologism whose notability has not been demonstrated even remotely. Our General notability guideline states: ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." What we have here is only a primary source. This one primary source is most definitely not independent of the subject (as required for notability purposes): it is by the inventors of this neologism. Clearly, most of the discussants here advocating "Keep" are also not independent, as they are either these inventors or their friends at Dartmouth. --Lambiam 11:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the sentence that reads, "This was named Wright's law at ShmooCon 2011..." doesn't provide a reference that uses the term "Wright's Law", plus the fact that this article was allegedly created while ShmooCon 2011 was still in progress, there is no need to take this article seriously. Unscintillating (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable secondary sources discuss this topic. WP:NEO. -Atmoz (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is missing is NOTABILITY! Nageh (talk) 23:48, 11 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) 01:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DirectSeats.com[edit]

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

non notable company WuhWuzDat 18:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Highly WP:PROMO tone of the original article suggests WP:Conflict of interest. Borkificator (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing special about this ticket broker. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of third-party coverage in notable publications or any other markers of notability. Herostratus (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 doesn't even claim to be important and has no secondary sources to back it up if it did. Is probably G11 and COI as well.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the relevant category and more relevant citations and content. DirectSeats.com is in line with other pages in its category from what I can determine.Stevenp69 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those citations don't help, in fact most of them don't even mention this subject. What you need to find are good quality third party sources which talk about this particular company and why it is notable, which at the moment is completely absent. The standard you are looking to demonstrate is WP:COMPANY. Note also that other similar articles existing does not mean this one should be kept, each article is judged on its own merits. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly been going long enough to achieve notability. (Not unless they were offering genuine table reservations for the Restaurant at the End of the Universe - and could prove it...) Current references tell us about other entities, not this one. They are really links not references. Peridon (talk) 19:30, 5 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 Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naglfar (band)[edit]

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

Deleted via prod then restored because the restoring admin said it had "sufficient coverage". However, a Google News search doesn't seem to show anything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. If the nom had bothered to read my edit summary when I removed the prod or looked on the article's talk page then we wouldn't need to waste time on another no-hope AFD.--Michig (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to be snarky. If the band has so many sources, how about putting them in the article? What good are they doing on the talk page? Are we now supposed to look on article talk pages for sources? Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of us have other things we need to do besides edit Wikipedia. I put them on the talk page as I didn't have time this morning to edit them into the article. And yes, people are supposed to look at talk pages before bringing articles to AFD.--Michig (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, despite the unpronounceable name. They have several albums, at least one (if not more) are on a real label (Regain Records, which is bluelinked). That would meet WP:BAND #5. "Has released two or more albums on a major label". If the statement about a "tour together with Dark Funeral across Europe" is true, that would meet WP:BAND #... well damn. There used to be criterion about international touring, but I guess it's gone now. Well anyway - they are not just a local band. Sure you're not going to find many sources about them - they're Swedish headbangers. Still: records, tours, longevity - I'd say, keep. Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Funny thing, when I'm creating an article I try and put the supporting citations in before I put in lots of copy. Which got me thinking, I wonder if that prose was added rather quickly. If you do a quick google search for the phrase The band was originally called Uninterred, the first line of the Biog section, it's amazing how many other websites have the exact same phrase in reference to this band. So, that rather suggests its a G12 Speedy Delete for WP:COPYVIO. Not wishing to be snarky, and noting that there do seem to be enough sources to support an article, can I suggest the author do a rather rapid re-write? --ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely that those other websites have copied the contents of this article, which has been here since 2004 with most of the text little changed for about 6 years years, so it's not remotely a candidate for G12. The original author hasn't contributed to Wikipedia for over 6 years, so I doubt any suggestion in that direction would be productive.--Michig (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Fair point, my bad I assumed this was a new article.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 4 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. Ged UK 11:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awakening (The Reasoning album)[edit]

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

Article on the band was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Reasoning). If the band is not notable, their albums certainly aren't. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. This is a bundled nomination which includes a total of five articles:

Awakening (The Reasoning album)
Dark Angel (The Reasoning album)
Acoustically Speaking
Adverse Camber
Highway to High Voltage

SnottyWong ^express 17:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Decepticons[edit]

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

I never liked the existing lists because they seem to be a weird mix of all the shows, toy, etc. Not really organized.
— Mathewignash, [2]

I would have expected someone to delete List of Decepticons, which is a worthless idea for an article in the first place, made even more worthless by its inability to decide whether it's a list of characters or a list of toys. If this is really a "something has to give" scenario where the raw number of Transformers articles is too high, then go after the dumb jive like that.
— ▲ndrusi/Andrusi, [3]

(Perhaps some people may find it strange that I'm quoting somebody from an off-site discussion that was mainly complaining about Wikipedia. However, I do admit that the quoted post does at least have some point.)

Seriously, this article seems a terrible idea. A collection of bluelinks with a couple of words next to each bluelink. Don't think this passes WP:LSC. Not all of the entires are notable, (notice how some of those bluelinks redirect back to this article) so not a "list of notable things". Apparently "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" are allowed, but there are craploads of characters who fall under "Decepticons". This list is too long for that.

Also, original research problem. Some Decepticons are described in this list as being specific models of vehicles (" Soundwave - Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk" as the description for Soundwave as he appeared in Transformers: Cybertron), original research if they weren't specifically described as those vehicles. Considering that many of these vehicle forms aren't actually licensed from their manufacturers, the characters' resemblance to them is probably not very much. If the similartites between the two (the character and the actual vehicle) are not obvious enough that the toymaker has to acquire a license or is at risk of a lawsuit, then it seems to be original research if not properly sourced. NotARealWord (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MergeRewrite to only list the ones with articles, and turn this article into a directory of sorts. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that would work. See those redirects, most (all?) of 'em used to be articles that got put through AfD. A lot of deleted articles keep getting redirected here for some reason. Of all the remaining characters with articles, I'm not sure how many of 'em actually are notable. NotARealWord (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed List of The Transformers characters#Decepticons, which probably lists all the notable Decepticons. Merge to that location. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, what? "List of The Transformers characters" is a list of characters from The Transformers. As in the original TV series. That article has a separate scope from this one. The problem with the "List of Decepticons" article is that it lists every single Decepticon across the entire history of the transformers brand. (Well, not quite but rather close). I think even "List of The Transformers characters" is too long really. Or will be too long if it were properly written. So, I'm against merge, considering that I'm actually in the process of splitting that article. NotARealWord (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well there needs to be some way to list all the ones that have articles to help readers find them. Maybe a table list. I contacted the Transformers project and suggested that they clean up their character articles, which will include sweeping most of them under the rug so they don't get sucked up by the vacuum. Once they do this, smaller List of Autobots and List of Decepticons can be made only listing notable ones. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the time being nothing better exists. I'd consider deletion AFTER there are better list to redirect to, by series for instance. Mathewignash (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps the article needs a reorganization instead of being deleted. --TX55^TALK 00:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm honestly floored that someone would think this was a good idea. Transformers are a big deal, and the fact that we managed to grow waaaaay too many articles doesn't mean a list-format article covering one of the two biggest factions should be deleted. "Decepticon" is a notable term, per Google News archive, so it's clear that a list of them belongs. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that any notable (fictional) organization deserves a list of every single member? This kind of list gives no coverage on its items, so I can't see how this article is a good idea. Don't see how this is allowed, either (see my nominating statement). How does WP:LSC or any such guideline/policy allow this kind of list? It's mainly a bunch of bluelinks. I think a list that doesn't explain its items works if they're all notable and have articles, but not all of these are notable. Plus, "Decepticon" also includes characters who have never appeared in any media. Why would any sort of character who hasn't done anything deserve a mention on WP? NotARealWord (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything "deserves a list of every single member". The contents of the list are not being discussed here, the existence of the list has been challenged. WP:LSC is a MOS entry, describing how information should be presented; it doesn't "allow" (or "prohibit", for that matter) anything. Please educate yourself on WP:NNC--specifically, that it is an option to limit certain lists to notable entries, rather than any sort of requirement. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do you justify a list that is "dumb jive" as described above? Or is there any way to make this list less like "dumb jive"? Are there any options to take with the contents of this list? Also, yeah, notability doesn't limit article content, but this list looks more like it was a navigation list, what with how the individual entries are not given coverage within, but it really can't be since may entries don't really deserve an article. Plus, this list rather takes WP:NNC to the extreme, indiscriminately mentioning really important plot-driving characters along with obscure ones that only had a toy release, giving equal coverage to either (equal as in, very little). Anyway, this is neither a navigation list (may of those bluelinks redirect back here), nor is it an explanation list (very little information on any of the characters). So, is this even fixable? If yes, then how?

NotARealWord (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up or even split into a better organization if someone can figure it out. The quality of this list is pretty poor. But it doesn't fundamentally fail any policy or guideline. Deceptikons are definitely a notable and discriminate class of things. This list needs a little attention that's all. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Clean up how? It's rather frustrating to have a page that can be fixed yet not knowing how to fix it. Also,if this is split, we don't really need any of the data from this page. It just contains bluelinked names and very short (yet somehow occasionally filled with original research) descriptions of the characters' alternate modes. Nothing that can't easily be rewritten from scratch. the information on each character here is literallyjust the name followed by three words. NotARealWord (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I apologize for making such a general statement but Decepticons as a group are notable as a result from Transformers. The article itself though is utter crap, it would look loads better in a table that it is right now, like in List of Donkey Kong video games or any other of the Featured Lists. But that's something you'll have to take up with the primary editors of this article and the Transformers Wikiproject. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those featured lists mix up important characters with those that only ever received a toy release and never appeared in any media whatsoever. Seriously, this list seems to be partially a list of toys. NotARealWord (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does article content rather than its real-world reception factor in on its Notability? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. I'll take this as a bad faith nomination. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First off, quoting people as you have done at the start of this AFD is ridiculous, especially when you know one of them would say keep. Transformers is a notable series and listing all the characters in it is fine. A complete list is necessary for a proper encyclopedic topic. Dream Focus 12:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how many Transformers characters there are? It's not just the TV shows, comic books, films and video games, there are characters who literally never appeared in any media. Why would it be encyclopedic to list those guys who never really showed up or even did anything? NotARealWord (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list would be incomplete otherwise. The article has to prove itself notable, not everything on the list. And size is never a valid reason to try to erase content. Dream Focus 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is no real reason to delete this article. JDDJS (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seriously? The "notability police" are really stretching further and further all the time to delete things they don't like. BOZ (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the AfD? this isn't about "notability". It's about how this list is worthless utter crap and not really helpful. NotARealWord (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not liking something, is not a valid reason for destroying it. See WP:Idon'tlikeit Dream Focus 00:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not worthless and unhelpful. It helps the reader find what character they are looking for. There has to be something to link all those articles together, or else you would never find them, unless you remember their name, which we shouldn't expect the reader to know by heart. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that this should be a navigation list? Many of those luelinks redirect back here. If this list was meant for navigation, then it shouldn't link back to itself. NotARealWord (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Not a serious vote) - Keep per Wikipedia's systemic bias against Transformers. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split and reorganize- The nominator is absolutely correct in saying that the list as it stands is untenable. Clearly the word Decepticon is not precise enough, given that we could be talking about toys, cartoon characters, even different toy models of the same charcater. So this list is a hodge-podge of different but related subjects. Reyk _YO! 01:04, 12 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 G12 by User:Sphilbrick (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anjul Tomar[edit]

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

Autobiography. Only assertion of notability is the fact that he got a world record for smashing 120 eggs into his head in a minute. While impressive, this fails WP:BLP1E and it is not of a substantial enduring nature per WP:BIO. Zachlipton (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BLP1E (and that one event is hardly earth shattering)--ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is a copyvio, but I've just tagged it and not deleted as I think some sort of community consensus to delete would be better as the article has been recreated after prior speedies. —SpacemanSpiff 11:40, 6 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.

Ilyas Kaduji[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is still disagreement on merging any of this, but consensus obviously does not favor keeping it as stand-alone article. Redirecting and leaving merger option open for further discussion on target article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Joseph Sheehan[edit]

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

Lacks secondary coverage. Article is one of several apparently created by a family member (sources, such as they are) include a letter that, the cite assures us, the family has. No evidence of notability. Disputed prod based on the idea that subject's notable father might make this something other than a deletion case. SummerPhD (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is well written and I don't have a huge problem with the sources, but there is nothing here that suggests importance. Notabillity is not inherited, so the notable father is not relevent. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a paragraph or so to the father's article if necessary, and Redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any information worthy of being transferred to father's article should go there. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge When I removed the prod I added the following edit summary Given his famous father this would be a possible merge not a straight delete, so thanks for misrepresenting my comments SummerPHD. Stand by my comments, lots of good material that would be useful in the father's article so merge and redirect. A simple deletion would be lazy and crass Kernel Saunters (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My apologies, I did not intend to misrepresent your comments. In any case, I'm not sure what material would be merged as virtually nothing in the article is meaningfully sourced. Certainly the family's letter is useless. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:GNG. Subject was killed in action in World War I and had a notable father however neither afford notability under the WP:MILMOS/N. Consideration needs to be given to a PROD/AfD for his brother Daniel Joseph Sheehan, who also appears to be non-notable for the same reasons. Anotherclown (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, cited information can be placed as a paragraph in parent's article as supported above by others. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Comment: Admittedly there were millions killed in the Great War. This page is part of trilogy of officer brothers who served on the front (with a sister, a V.A.D. nurse), together with their father, a member of parliament . Presentation, structure and layout appear to meet general standards (just improved further with infobox). The individual was additionally a good sportsperson, as are the vast majority of fellow countrymen in the Category:People from County Cork or Category:People from County Kerry, their claim to notability principally based on playing well for a club in early years. Should the page be further questioned, a compromise might be in merging all under one lead person (the "notable" brigadier). Merging all under the father would de-focus his article from his political importance, to enlarging on the Great War, a matter many in Ireland would object to. The Great War has yet to be integrated into Irish history and is a matter of considerable controversy!! Thank you for understanding this very relevant point. Osioni (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Without significant coverage in independent reliable sources, we have nothing to save from this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe issue is not the quality and style of the article (which is good), but the basic notability of the subject. Bearing in mind that notability is not inherited from family members, there is nothing to show that this person is any more important than any other person who fought in the war. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no support for this being a notable individual with significant coverage in reliable sources, and no information worth merging across to the father's article. Perhaps a single sentence would be appropriate, but that is already there (without then names of his children), and we don't need to preserve article history to add Martin's name to the article. gnfnrf (talk) 02:39, 7 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) 02:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indialog Publications[edit]

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

No reliable references provided.References are links belonging to the company itself.Just published a few authors but no book has been a big hit or best seller.No significant charity work done nor it has published significant books.Was tagged but still not provided with reference.Seems like promoting a publishing house.--Poet009 (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 14:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 14:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:ORG--Sodabottle (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing significant in this publishing house--Poet009 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Article's subject doesn't fulfill conditions of WP:ORG, didn't find something worthy/reliable which could signifies its notability. Bill william compton (talk) 14:14, 11 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. Redirect/merging discussions can continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Quay (Toronto)[edit]

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Queen's Quay. The useful content from the subject has been merged into the target. No need for a standalone article on this only half-notable street when it is better presented along with other nearby streets ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Less than a week ago, List of roads in Toronto was a simple list with multiple wikilinks to articles of streets included in the list. It was only less than 7 KB long.
Here is what it looked like on February 3, 2011.
On February 3, the nom then took various contents from all of those articles and placed them in this list article and removed most of the wikilinks, including to Queen's Quay (Toronto).[4] That article is now over 109 kb, way too long per WP:SIZERULE. I suppose this was all part of an effort to delete most Toronto street articles and just have summaries in this new parent one and add content from his own userspace for streets that had no articles and this AfD is an extension of that effort.--Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've greatly expanded it and added some more refs. - SimonP (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and kudos to SimonP. Why would we want to delete this article? Clearly (in my opinion) a notable street with many notable entities on it. Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking to delete it. We're looking to merge all of its information into a larger article. The places on Queen's Quay being notable doesn't make the street notable; the street itself needs some claim to notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that article is too long already. If all the information is to be kept, then whether Queen's Quay has a separate article or is an entry in a larger article is, to a certain extent, a technical question - which is most likely more use-friendly to a typical user? When articles get too long, it's often appropriate to break them out into separate articles for useability reasons. Sometimes that's not easy, but a list of streets lends itself very well to this. Herostratus (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I agree that the new article is very bulky at the moment. It was just made, so ideas are open to flow in. However, having one article for each of these streets is the opposite end of the overkill spectrum. A middle ground should be found. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess in the end, it kind of comes down to one's opinion. We don't really have a hard-and-fast guideline on this, I guess. We have WP:STREET, which seems like a reasonable essay but is, after all, just one's person suggestion. My opinion is: I like street articles. Herostratus (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep- This is articles for deletion, not articles for redirect. Redirect disucssions should be had on the article's talk page, not here. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per nom. Dough 48 72 21:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, from a purely technical perspective AfD is not for redirection, use the merge templates for that. Over and above that, WP:STREET (which is admitedly a userspace essay) would suggest this might be notable as a prominent street. Are there any better guidelines for notabillity of streets?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid article of notable street in Toronto. Also merging all these into a super list article isn't appropriate as that article is getting far too large and should be split into smaller articles per WP:LENGTH. If it's notable enough for these streets to have multiple paragraphs in that article, then they're valid enough to be resplit down into individual articles again. Canterbury Tail talk 23:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears to be a major and historic street in Toronto. Far too much topic-specific content to move to an already far too large article that should be just a list anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. The sources already in the article are already fairly good, although a cynic might suggest that only one really talks about the street in any detail. Add in something like this, however, and notability would appear to be beyond doubt. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes, I agree that this one's a slam-dunk, now. In addition to the Toronto Star ref mentioned above -- which cited is the article now -- I've even been reading about the street here in Montreal for years, as an example of a somewhat controversial redevelopment of the lakeshore. I believe there's room for expansion in this regard, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 8 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Abreu[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player has not yet met WP:BASE/N. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The usual practice with active minor league players is to merge their info onto the parent teams minor league page. In this case: Atlanta Braves minor league players. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge to Atlanta Braves minor league players as he is young (25 years old) and currently on the Braves' 40 man roster, he could easily be promoted to the majors at some point in the next few years. ~~This article should be kept due to WP:POTENTIAL and another AfD could be opened if he doesn't reach the majors in the future.~~ --Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Potential doesn't apply here, the argument you've used for keep is actually almost the exact for WP:FUTURE. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Changed my vote. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he was already a AA or AAA player the WP:Potential argument could have been valid but looking at the article and the reference to his stats- he's mostly played A ball. Most likely he'll be reassigned to AA or AAA after spring training. I'm not a big fan of the Atlanta Braves minor league players as other sport Wikiprojects have stricter notability guidelines for minor league player. Essentially we're taking lots of non-notable stubs about these minor league players and just combining them onto a larger article. But that's an argument not really for this AfD and it seems that's how Wikiproject Baseball currently handles minor league player articles that aren’t notable enough yet to have their own articles. Bhockey10 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Spanneraol (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to consider guys currently on the 40-man roster as notable enough for an article. Alex (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I think the "ever played a single at-bat in MLB" is a wide enough net; we don't need to cast further by including people who have been on the 40-man roster. Ma^t_chups 18:38, 7 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) 02:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brentford F.C. Kits[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. Stating on the club's main article that they have always played in variants of red and white stripes is more than sufficient, we don't need a separate article devoted to what is essentially a huge gallery of every minor variant on that theme. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This article is nothing more than an unencyclopedic photo gallery. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not relevant for an encyclopedia. For precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Bradford City kits. Giant Snowman 17:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do strive to be the sum of all human knowledge, but this is just petty. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a fine piece of work, on an interesting and worthwhile subject. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be interesting if there were anything of interest there. All there is is a collection of images which actually tell you nothing. "Wow, the stripes were slightly wider in 1992 than they are today!" Whoop-dee-doo! Delete – Pee Jay 22:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @ArtVandelay13, see WP:ILIKEIT. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 04:00, 5 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. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hörður Björgvin Magnússon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see any reliable third-party sourcing to confirm notability . Rirunmot (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He plays for Knattspyrnufélagið Fram, a professional team, and therefore satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL requires not only the team but also the league to be fully professional. The Icelandic league is not per WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 4 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 close consensus is that a mistake was made. It happens to us all. Good additions to the article, time to move on. Mandsford 00:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Leinster Province[edit]

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

A search for references found no published (gBooks) WP:RS for "New Leinster Province" the only mention is in New Zealand History By Various Authors at Wikibooks, fails WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Is this editor for real? This map is from the NZ Government agency that looks after history. Came up as the fifth item for me in a Google search. Schwede 66 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Important NZ historical article that should never have been proposed for deletion Kahuroa (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a few references so it should pass verifiability now. The article is small and unlikely to get bigger so maybe a merge with the other early provinces should be considered? AIRcorn (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A topic only "fails" WP:V if it's unverifiable, not if it's currently unverified to the nom. In this case, not only does it "pass" WP:V, it passes WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable in NZ history, with plenty of sources to indicate both its notability and veracity. The fact that few of these sources are online ones is often irrelevant with historical topics - books often contain far more of that sort of information. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised by this nomination from a seasoned editor. Moriori (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable by reference to any 1960s primary school atlas. Unfortunately such an atlas would still be copyright so cannot be reproduced in this article; but hard-copy-only sources do not appear to be prohibited by WP:V. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keeep Clearly notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Avenue (Toronto)[edit]

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

Redirect to List of roads in Toronto#Eastern Avenue. Not an important or notable road. Eastern is a widened side street. It's only notable claim is that the Hell's Angels had a chapter on the street that was raided (but that belongs in the Hell's Angels article). It's also not one of "Toronto's oldest streets", as it wasn't constructed until at least 100 years after Toronto was born. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge per nom, excising the falsehoods and trivia. Imzadi 1979 → 15:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um. Are you saying that article is false? Because the article says that's about three miles long, which doesn't sound like a side street. It doesn't look like a side street street in the pictures. It has hella bluelinked entities on it. It's an important artery in an important district. Now, if all or most of this is not true, then fine. If it's actually a 30-meter long alley behind a defunct bakery or whatever, OK, let's delete it. Otherwise, keep. Herostratus (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying every piece of pavement that isn't a 30m alleyway deserves a seperate article, even if only a few sentences can actually be written about it? This fails the WP:Pokemon test. Being four lanes wide doesn't make it notable, it makes it a widened city street. Being X kilometres long doesn't add anything to notability either. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. We want to expand our coverage of streets, not contract it, I would think. Anyway, there are five entities that are directly on this street that are notable enough to be bluelinked - Inglenook Community High School, West Don Lands, Old Eastern Avenue Bridge, Broadview Lofts, Greenwood Raceway. That alone is sufficient to keep the article, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I wish to expand Ontario quite a bit. I don't believe expansion necessarily equates to new independent articles, but rather new or better referenced content, and the compilation of disjointed information into organized knowledge. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per nom. Dough 48 72 21:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've done a fair number of renovations and it should stand on its own now. - SimonP (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not the place for a request to rediect, use the merge templates. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keepnow that updated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to WP:STREET, and given the Toronto population (city limits) of about 4,750,000, there should be articles on 95 Toronto streets. Of course WP:STREET is just an essay. Whether Eastern Avenue is one of the 95 most notable Toronto streets I can't say, but it might be. Herostratus (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its actually less than half of that. The road articles for Hamilton, Ontario are good examples of non-shitty city street articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I was looking at the population of the whole urban area. The city limits is 2,500,000. Thus if the advice of WP:STREET is taken, that would live Toronto with 50 street articles. It's a lot less likely that Eastern Avenue is one of the top 50 streets than one of the top 95. So this is an important point. However, it may be one of the top 50 and anyway WP:STREET is just advice. So I would still say keep the article.

Hmmm, Hamilton. Hamilton has about 500,000 peeps, so per WP:STREET it would get 10 street articles. But Category:Roads in Hamilton, Ontario has 70 articles. So some of the articles must be about fairly minor streets. The first three I picked at random - King Street (Hamilton, Ontario), John Street (Hamilton, Ontario), Aberdeen Avenue - these are lengthy detailed articles. I don't see right off a huge difference between these and this article (Eastern Avenue), so I'm not sure of your point here. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quality is what I'm pointing out, not the notability. I don't question notability on articles like that. I do on poorly written articles, which most of the streets in Toronto are. I'm glad at the very least that this has brought forth some positive contributions to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment (as author of WP:STREET) - the essay refers to streets notable simply by local prominence, and makes it clear *(hopefully) that it doesn't refer to streets which have inherent notability for other reasons. As such, it's theoretically possible for Hamilton to have 10 prominent streets and several others notable for other reasons. I'd be surprised if it has 60, but it's possible. Basically though, a simple count of the category won't tell you very much as far as the essay is concerned. Grutness...wha? 20:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SimonP. FieldMarine (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strange one. Despite the road having over 700 Google News results, the vast majority appear to discuss things located on the street (The Hell's Angels site, a temporary detention centre used during a G20 meeting, a power plant and a propsed Wal-mart were among the most covered). Very little coverage actually about the road itself. Book sources were marginally better but still not quite sufficient, so redirect for now. Future recreation with better sources would be fine with me. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:02, 8 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. Verification is not a policy we can just ignore. I don't see a conspiracy against anyone, just even handed, policy based arguments to delete this improperly sourced article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest grossing Indian films[edit]

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

This article fails the WP:V policy and will be unlikely to resolve the issue in the future or through discussion on the article talk page as consistent reliable sources do not exist for the Indian film market. The lead text of the article (version at time of nomination) makes it clear that no box-office figures are officially published and the sources of the figures are therefore speculative estimates.

Taking the top example of the highest grossing film of all time is Enthiran listed as Rs. 375 crore, however this figure is an estimate by the COO of the production company (Sun Pictures) and the source is a video of a promotional interview with him giving an estimate rather than based on a published verifiable sales figure in a reliable source. Other sources for box-office sales for Enthiran have been discussed at length on Talk:Enthiran with no source yet proposed that can be verified for any specific figures though many rounded up estimates from pundits and promotional sources are available.

Raising for wider discussion in the context of this (link) India film list being deleted under a similar rationale. Fæ (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the Fae on this matter for the reasons are being quoted. I mentioned in the several pages regarding this. Why this issue is being coming only when Endhiran is being considered in the top of the list.

Everyone was happy to list 3 idiots at the top of the list without any debate or for any film listed below.Chief operating officer will not promote the film after hundred days of its running.Probably he clarified everyone who has raised doubts in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was raised (thankfully) after enthiran, because it has exposed how unverifiable the indian box office numbers are. "will not promote film after hundred days of its running". Sun Pictures promotes its movies at least till they are shown in their network. "Probably he clarified everyone who has raised doubts in it". Probably? and we have to take his word at that. That shows everything that is wrong with Indian box office numbers, we excuse COI reporting saying it is "probably" ok. Unfortunately it might be ok for Indian media's standards, but not for Wikipedia's--Sodabottle (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because of fundamental unveriability of such lists. And per the arguments made in the other Afds for Tamil and Telugu film lists.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 18:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This fae is a supporter of bollywood , he is doing this because he couldn't tolerate the success of tamil cinema and wants to hide all the real facts of Indian cinema from wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.175.32.147 (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right. Fae likes bollywood so much that he nominated the list of highest grossing bollywood films for deletion as well.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hai Sodabottle; I dont know where were the people are until today talking about standards of references for Indian cinema. I think suddenly "so called alertness" grips every one. It is not like that. No one is ready to accept the truth. Anyone can delete this article. But the history wont support you. If some one is good enough judge on the box office, even a childish cine artist will tell the success of Endhiran. I strongly oppose to delete this article. Instead of deleting this article, you may quote in the introduction, that this is the rough estimate and there are no official figures for indian box office.Similar introduction is given for List of highest grossing bollywood or hindi films in wikipedia. The introduction says "Box office figures in India are not published, as there is no official source. The following is a non-inflation-adjusted list of the highest-grossing Bollywood films in India according to BoxOffice India.com and IBOS Network. Figures are given in Indian rupees. For an inflation-adjusted list, see List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, adjusted for inflation" The rules should be unbiased, if you are deleting the articles delete all these lists (hindi/telugu/tamil). I dont think sincerely that this will help the leaders point of view. It is very blatant and sounds to every one that films listed in tamil, hindi or telugu are super hits. Present generation will know these. But time to come, it is very difficult to retrieve these information and refrences. It is up to you to think and decide.My best possible suggestion is providing a valuable introduction. I dont think for shake of publicity a film producer will give a statement for mega hit movie of tamil film industry (which already ran for 100 days And Indian institute of management-Ahmedabad has taken the success of endhiran in its project). It is worst situation only in bollywood, an actor will cut hairs, strip cloths in the public place and come in front of media thousand time before release etc., etc., I expect your view point on the same before any further action. And I expect from wikipedia that it should be genuine and even can retain the Article of List of highest grossing tamil films.

Weak, non-sequitur argument given by 69.175.32.147. Have a good understanding of this article before contributing on Wikipedia please. No one here is "against" anything (including Tamil cinema) to have it deleted and removed, otherwise we wouldn't be on Wikipedia for long. These deletion proposals and "so called alertness" of reference verifiability and encyclopedic/academic accuracy is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please inform yourself of these before contributing. Thanks. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so the policy was established on February 2011? I dont think so..I myself not against any film industry nor supporting some thing. Retain all the informations including grossing history of Tamil, Telugu and hindi and all over India, so far created with the introductory weightage. Have many wasted their valuable time to create these informations and contributions? You can very well delete these informations but you hurt millions of contributions which you will loose in future course. Nothing sentiment. Its a forum and everyone has to say what they feel.. Simply destroying house after Constructing dont help. instead repair it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivanesanvet (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no, Wikipedia isn't a forum. Secondly, this isn't a village pump. We're not here to "feel" about the valuable time and effort whatsoever that some people may have put into contributing Wikipedia articles, and we appreciate that. But before arguing here, please understand what the purpose of this deletion nomination is. If you can find a source that has original/verifiable accounts of Tamil/Telugu/Indian film budgets and gross data, then please use that to justify your refusal to having this article deleted. The problem is about availability and verifiability of genuine sources for keeping a list of highest grossing Indian films, not how much one likes/dislikes Indian films or contributions to Indian film articles. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion could have been raised before , when enthiran hit the top , people cashed in to delete and hide the reality , whether you accept it or not this is the truth , people here are biased. I see the same set of guys who Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films did delete List of highest-grossing Tamil-language films here too...

don't delete till other admins look into this Rt sachin (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moravané[edit]

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

Czech Republic political party which garnered all of "0.23 % of popular votes" in 2006 election. Fails WP:GNG. I do not want to get caught up in Czech Republic politics, but this article seems to exist solely as a political statement. More foreign language sources may exist, but this will probably never be a good fit on English-language Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the party is really electorally weak and will never pass the 5% threshold to reach the Chamber of Deputies, it is a notable part of Czech political folklore. It is also the strongest purely regional political party in the Czech Republic and represents the interesting millieu of Moravian autonomists. - Darwinek (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Shouldn't we ask Czech-speaking editors to find sources? There's probably little in English but I wouldn't be surprised if there is significant coverage in Czech. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This party is an important political subject "representing the interests" of Moravia (a large and significant part of the Czech Republic). The article is sourceable, I found two articles published by Mladá fronta DNES, another coverage by Czech Television [5], Czech Radio [6], etc. [7] [8]. Preserving this kind of information is important for better understanding of political and ethnic situation in the Central European region. ...I have to admit that I watch their meetings and funny marches with a kind of silent amusement :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this extremist party gained only 0,22 % votes (= 11,900 people) in last 2010 elections it is important for political milieu of Czechia because of its clear-cut ideology. No other Czech party holds such opinions and makes similar actions like this one: strong regionalism, firm opposite against Czech nation (though Moravians, Silesians and Bohemians are – at least from linguistic and historical point of view – practically undistinguishable) and Czech government, calling for autonomy/(con)federative arrangement of Czechia (more precisely: effort to dismantle Czech state), aggressive, insistent and clamorous campaigns (various webs (including videos on YT), public candle- and flag marches, flying the yellow-red flag (20 years ago totally unknown) at city halls in Moravia, insulting the Czechs and the President of the Republic, persuading people from Moravia to stop account themselves as Czechs etc. etc.) and, last but not least, party members' and sympathizers' systematic attacks on the Czech Wikipedia (several cases per week). All these facts illustrated how special is role of the Moravists on Czech political scene – this party is main troublemaker in the area of separatism, ultra-regionalism and national minority vs. majority controversies. Well, presently most inhabitants of Moravia remain immune to their propaganda but hereafter – who knows?? This party also started as a small group... As for sourcing: if someone lacks any source please tag it. I will ensure completion (mostly in Czech, of course, because there aren't many articles about this miniparty in English). --Iaroslavvs (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun (musician)[edit]

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

Very weak sources, no significant coverage, fails the GNG though he might barely pass WP:MUSIC based on radio playlists. Seems non-notable to me. Huon (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep, it's marginal, but this ref http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/panjabihitsquad/20080615.shtml does show he was on a BBC radio playlist, albeit not for one of their mainstream stations, so I'd give benefit of the doubt based on WP:BAND #11. Needs to be re-written though as it's sailing pretty close to the wind on copyvio and smells of astroturfing.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's worth noting that the article creator has an identical username to the subject, so almost certainly has COI.
Weak Delete, in light of the COI I'm going to switch to delete as it more than smells of Astroturfing now. Article might posibly be rescued as he might just be notable per WP:BAND, but he can't do it as he has COI and there's no evidence of anyone else working this article so two marignals make a delete for me. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I wrote this article and am part of Arjun's PR team - not sure if this mean that COI applies? As far as notability is concerned, I am positive that Arjun has enough of a fan base to justify mention on wikipedia. He has had radioplay on national stations such as BBC Radio 1: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00twxzp http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00trlwt http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00v11j7

He has also been playlisted on other BBC stations such as Asian Network: http://www.bbc.co.uk/asiannetwork/playlist/index.shtml

Please see his various fan sites and groups on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/arjun.artist http://www.facebook.com/pages/ARJUN/127464250623646 http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12672402415

It is also worth searching 'Arjun Remember Tonight' on google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuncoom (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. In terms of WP:COI, yes being on his PR team most definitely applies. Please read the linked policy document for guidance. Wikipedia is not a forum for promotional activity, but rather a reflection of existing reliable third party sources from elsewhere. In terms of notabillity, the standard is WP:GNG and WP:BAND, and sources need to meet the standards of WP:SOURCES. Unfortunately social media sites and fan made pages generally don't fall into this category. What would be more appropriate is significant coverage in national media, or similar.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like he may become notable but right now there does not appear to be enough coverage in reliable sources to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If COI is the main issue then I understand that the article should be removed. Having said this, I don't feel that the article is written using promotional language. Everything that has been stated is factual. Furthermore, there are very few notable artists of Sri Lankan origin, and the majority of the ones already existing on Wikipedia have far fewer artistic credentials than Arjun. He is one of the few artists putting Sri Lanka on the map in the UK. Arjun has produced an album which was released internationally by Sony Music India: http://desi-box.com/media/bhangra/shivali-brings-you-the-bhajan-project-.html This album also reached the Top 10 of the UK iTunes World Music Chart: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=491379963173&set=a.491379958173.265900.278384168173&theater He has performed to crowds of up to 30,000. Please see this overview of Arjun's performances, press and TV appearances in 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALqo0B1AMlM If the structure and wording of the article is incorrect then this can of course be changed. Please let me know whether the page will stand and I will make the necessary changes to the format, sources etc Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuncoom (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for inclusion that needs to be demonstrated is listed at this page WP:BAND, which needs to be demonstrated with sources that meet the guidelines here WP:SOURCES. COI doesn't necessarily mean the article will be deleted, but you should read the following page for guidance before making further edits yourself WP:COI.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Khabbaz[edit]

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

Notability, factual accuracy is dubious. I propose a deletion. bender235 (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some sources just in the Cinema section (there are probably more sources to be found in the theater and TV areas - plus this which I wasn't sure if it added anything, so I left it out) and on the basis of those, coupled with his Murex d'Or wins, I'd suggest he passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT#1. The article certainly needs to be tidied, and it doesn't help that everything seems to have at least two names, with Khabbaz's name being spelled at least 4 different ways I found. But still, salvageable. - ManicSpider (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject meets WP:ARTIST criteria.Eli + 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good job, ManicSpider! I'd have said the Murex d'Or would probably have motivated a keep, but with the extra sources added to the article I believe he definitely meets WP:ENT. --bonadea contributions talk 17:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Now the subject is well sourced, it meets WP:ENT-- Rirunmot (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Though there seems to be an IP intent on not following the WP:AFD procedure, they at least certainly seem to be making a conscientious effort to improve the article in accordance with WP:ENT --Doriftu Speak Up. 10:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that it's the same IP that created the article. While I'm here, I don't suppose anyone can work out the correct spelling of the TV and Theater listing with numerals in them? I'm assuming that the random 2s are Google Translate stuffing up somewhere. - ManicSpider (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT, the subject meets both.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hunau[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated this for deletion in May 2009 but was closed as no consensus. I've had another look at this and it seems the situation is the same. I remain concerned that the article fails to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). The previous discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hunau, where the arguments in favour of keeping, and my responses to those, can be seen. Adambro (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The statement "I've had another look at this and it seems the situation is the same" is no longer applies. Thanks to new sources added by me and User:Sean.hoyland the article now has enough secondary sources to be speedy kept.For example after the article was created Bary's cartoons were published in Best Editorial Cartoons of the Year: 2010 Edition By Charles Brooks. This fact alone makes him notable enough to have an article on wikipedia, and there was a piece on him in the Lamorinda Weekly --Mbz1 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they were but as was the work of 170+ other cartoonists, I don't think that is a particularly compelling reason to consider him to be notable. I welcome the recent attempts to improve the article but still feel are a little short of the basic criteria that a subject is considered notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". As it stands we only seem to have one source, the Lamorinda Weekly article which would fall into that category. The other sources are either trivial mentions or, in the case of the AAEC profile, not independent of the subject. Adambro (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see how many Comics creator stubs with at least 1/3 of those missing any references at all we have on wikipedia, so actually to get in 170 top best cartoonist of the year is not a bad achievement after all. Barry is published in many news papers as it seen from the article, and about secondary sources, well, I am afraid he did not win a second praise on the Holocaust denial cartoon competitions in Iran. Could an article about him still be present on Wikipedia?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you wouldn't change your comments after I've already replied. Nevertheless, as I explained in that reply, I have clearly indicated that I am aware of the recent changes that have been made and don't feel the article yet meets the basic notability criteria. I'm therefore confused as to why you suggest this should be speedily kept when I've not accepted that any of the changes made address the concerns I have expressed. As for your comment about him not winning a prize in a Holocaust denial cartoon competition, your are of course correct but it does call into question whether you are approaching this whole issue in the right frame of mind. Our focus here should be this article, let's not be distracted by other articles about other subjects which may be related but are not relevant in deciding whether this article should be kept or not. Adambro (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have changed my comment because your statements are misleading and contradict each other. On one hand you said: "I've had another look at this and it seems the situation is the same." On the other hand you say: "I am aware of the recent changes that have been made". So to sum it.

You nominated this article on deletion almost 2 years ago.
The deletion request was closed as "no consensus".
The situation with the sourcing of the article has improved, and 4 extra sources were added.

The conclusion is: The article should be speedy kept.

Please let's stop wasting each other time. If you really concern with under-sourced or missing all sources whatsoever wikipedia's stubs, there's plenty of those to nominate on deletion. This stub does not belong to them.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing misleading or contradictory about my statements. All my comments have the time I made them next to them and I would thought it would be obvious that they can only reflect the situation at that time. There have been some recent changes, yes, but I'm not going to start going back and editing comments I've made previously, particularly when, as I've explained, I still feel the situation is the same.

Perhaps we can focus on the issue I have raised here. I don't believe the article meets the criteria of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". What are your thoughts on that issue? Adambro (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thought on the issue are: Every single week a few cartoons of Barry Hunau are published in newspapers around the world. It is the best coverage that independent sources could provide on the subject, if the subject is a cartoonist.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When we already have well established guidelines for considering whether a subject is notable, I don't think we need to or really should be coming up with alternative ways to try to get the answer we might like. Our guidelines may not cover every possible situation but I'm not convinced the situation with this subject is so unique that we can justify ignoring them in this case. WP:PEOPLE already has a specific section relating to creative professionals, WP:ARTIST, which sets out some additional criteria which may be relevant. Having compared the subject against that criteria, I don't feel the subject meets it. Perhaps, if you don't want to say whether or not you think that Hunau meets the basic criteria of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", you could say whether you think he meets the creative professionals criteria and we can go from there? Adambro (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. The sources given are extremely minor, of local interest only. Qworty (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly there is coverage independent of the subject. What is significant is subjective. There are thosusands of BLPs which are completely unsourced and there was a recent drive to improve this situation by asking editors to add one source (not to delete them). This is the current practice. This individual is notable and the article is sourced. - BorisG (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course significant is subjective but that doesn't mean we can't consider whether there is significant coverage. As far as I can tell there is only one source that would meet the basic Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria of providing significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject. That most basic criteria is for multiple sources which meet the definition, not one. All the other sources are very trivial mentions, literally just a sentence or so, or are not independent of the subject, including the bio written by Hunau and his website.

As I've suggested previously, there may be exceptional circumstances when it may be appropriate not to consider the established notability guidelines for deciding whether someone is notable in the Wikipedia sense, but I see nothing particularly unusual here which would warrant that. Hunau struggles to meet to basic notability criteria and doesn't meet the more specific criteria (WP:ARTIST) relating to creative professionals as far as I can tell. Adambro (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject. I am not an authority in the area of editorial cartoonist, but I believe the ref coverage is reasonable. The fact that the artist is regularly published by various geographically distributed sources indicate some measure of notability as creative artist in his field. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Mr. Hunau informed me that one of his cartoons was selected for The best editorial cartoon for 2011 too, which means that yet another RS could be added to the article soon. I believe AfD should be withdrawn.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more sources in this article than there are ;lines there. I do not see any problem with the notability.--Broccolo (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject evidenced by multiple published secondary sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person, plus good sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:09, 9 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, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MChad[edit]

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

No clear evidence of notability. Seems he still has yet to sign a record deal. Mention of a future (WP:CRYSTAL) release that will be released "independently". Dweller (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - The publication "The Garden Island" is referenced multiple times in the article. Does anyone know if this is a reliable, independent source? VQuakr (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Answer - Yes, this is a reliable, independence source. The Garden Island is Kauai, Hawaii's only major newspaper and more info can be found at the following link: http://thegardenisland.com/app/our_newspaper/about_us/ Keep in mind, not all articles are available online due to a limited staff. Thegardenisland (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and to answer Dweller: That should not be not categorized under (WP:CRYSTAL) because there is a citation and reference to that independent release through his Twitter status, which makes it 100% valid because it is a firsthand source. Thegardenisland (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not a reliable source, and nor are most first-hand sources, when establishing notability. Who is going to say that they are only a minor player in the big game of life, especially when they are trying to sell something? We need independent coverage - and I'm not too happy about your claim for The Garden Island being a reliable source, in view of your username. This appears to show a connection with a company or organisation, which is against our policy on usernames WP:USERNAME. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have done much of note, apart perhaps from the wise move of continuing his education. I wish him luck either way. I do wish that people would understand the difference between notoriety and fame, however. Quite a few rappers do seem to be notorious, and others try to appear notorious (but aren't). Notoriety is fame for something like being a pirate, being a serial bigamist, or being a continual sockpuppeteer on Wikipedia. Fame is when a lot of people have heard of you for rather better reasons (so far as the main part of society is concerned). Peridon (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:NM. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 03:37, 6 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, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kotler[edit]

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

This was tagged for csd, but its been here since last year and there are enough edits that I think a drive by deletion is unwarrented. Furthermore, I;m not entirely sold on the absence of notability; from what I see there may be just enough here to justify the article staying on site. For these two reasons I'm opting for an afd over a csd axing. I have no strong feelings on the matter one way or the other, I'm just trying to clear out the csd backlog. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think there's enough widespread coverage. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — lacks sufficient reliable, secondary sources for verification. Too few hits in the Google news archive for the general notability requirements. Also does not appear to meet any of the criteria for creative professionals. Feezo (Talk) 10:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 4 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 procedural close. Already closed by shii, closing properly. Rationale was Closed. Revoking this AfD request, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. Shii (tock) 02:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT topics and Shinto[edit]

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

This is a patently ludicrous idea for an article. It's like asking what position of Japanese undertakers or Japanese museum curators is on homosexuality; in other words, a topic that is utterly irrelevant to the specialists, just as much as their own beliefs are irrelevant to Japanese society. Nothing can be said about it; nothing has been said in Japanese; and a quick search will discover no reliable sources anywhere. A similar article in American culture would be LGBT topics and wishing wells, or the AfD classic Judaism and bus stops. It doesn't even deserve a redirect to Homosexuality in Japan, as it is a highly unlikely topic. Shii (tock) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is so, then perhaps there should be an explanation of this (and why it's so--most non-Japanese readers might not understand why it's irrelevant to Shinto religious teachings) in the Homosexuality in Japan article. Instead of being deleted, the page/namespace could then be redirected to Homosexuality_in_Japan#Monastic_same-sex_love, which already has a discussion of the religious traditions in Japan. Or, an additional section could be added to that article to discuss the various religions' teachings apart from monastic culture. In other words, how can we incorporate a discussion of why the topic is not a big deal into current articles, rather than delete the topic entirely? I for one (not knowing a whole lot about Shinto) don't see how the topic is as silly as your examples of undertakers and curators, or of wishing wells and bus stops, and it would be useful to at least have some explanation of how the two topics do and don't overlap. Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I just added references from three academic sources that discuss the relationship between Shinto beliefs and practices and homosexuality. So it is not a completely irrelevant topic. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sources you found. I take issue with the first two. The first says "Shinto ... celebrates the sexual as an expression of nature". I'm not sure who "Shinto" is in this sentence or how they became a "Shinto", but in any case the relationship to homosexuality is purely speculative. The second says, according to you, that "under Shinto such affairs were often expressed as part of the samurai tradition of Shudo"; I have no idea what the "under Shinto" part of this is supposed to mean.

The third one is substantive, and was fun to research; the relevant pages of Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan, 32-33, basically state that shrines were neutral on the subject of sex, which makes sense, as e.g. palm readers are neutral on sexuality. Here also, as is often the case in Western academic writing, "Shinto" is used as a synonym for folklore. Google Books blocked me from looking up the reference for his own statement about kami, but Hachiman, Tenjin, etc. are all common kami and it's not clear to me how they would acquire homosexual connotations. The illustration on page 34 would be an excellent addition to the Homosexuality in Japan article but as you can see it is a lighthearted doodle that is not part of a religious text.

The sum total of this is that I will agree on two points: 1) a Tokugawa commentator on Japanese mytho-history made a joke that the first three generations of kami in the Nihongi must have had anal sex as they were all male; 2) drawing kami engaging in anal sex was an amusing pastime in the same period. I still believe this is an absurd basis for an article. I assure you that the one on Judaism and bus stops had much more material to work with. Shii (tock) 16:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second source confused me a bit as well--"under Shinto" = what?? I've found and added some more sources; take a look at those and tell me what you think, since I'm relying on other people's scholarship. I think we can say that there are people who address the issue, even if only to show that it's really not been a huge deal within Shinto. You may be right that there's not enough there for a stand-alone article, but certainly there seems to be enough to turn the page into a redirect and include 2 or 3 paragraphs on the topic in the Homosexuality in Japan article. Would that solution be agreeable to you? I'm sure that somewhere, there's a college kid trying to write an essay on Homosexuality and Shinto, and we at least need something addressing the topic. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with merging anything you find, I guess this would make a decent section in another article. By the way, I found the original source of that statement in Homosexuality and civilization -- it's page 210 of this book, which I'll have to look at myself. BTW, the story you linked about "the neutrality of homosexuality in Shinto" has nothing to do with Shinto because Shinto as a mode of thought did not exist when the Shinto mythologies were written (confusing, yes...). If anything that is a statement about the neutrality of homosexuality in classical Japanese society, which belongs firmly at the top of a history section of its article. Shii (tock) 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into a new section of Homosexuality in Japan, based on the discussion here and the finding of several sources that do at least address the issue. A stand-alone article may not be warranted, but it would helpful to a discussion somewhere on the site and to have the page redirected to it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is far from patently ludicrous, and I fail to see the comparison with Japanese undertakers. Shinto may not be a major world religion, yet it is still a world religion and I feel it is important to have articles exploring the relationship between these religions and contentious issues. And this is one such contentious issue. If this is to be deleted, then why not Christianity and homosexuality, LGBT topics and Islam or Lesbian and gay topics and Judaism? -- role^player 18:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand Japanese society. I should have known better than to take this to AfD where people with no interest in the topic will comment on it. "Shinto is a world religion"... honestly... Shii (tock) 02:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based reason has been given to warrant deletion. SanchiTachi (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meshcherts people[edit]

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

I've declined a db-hoax on this article, as it is not blatant. There has been an explanation on my talk page which highlights why it might be a hoax, but confirms to me that it isn't blatant. As there's already been edit warring over the speedy tag, I've brought it here for wider community discussion. My only opinion is that it isn't blatant, I have no opinion on whether it is a hoax or not. Ged UK 07:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Waste of our time. Burden of proof on OC, which seems a likely CSD candidate. Shadowjams (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I agree that it is not a blatant hoax, I can't find anything to confirm that this group actually exists. Though a speedy deletion is unlikely, a SNOW might not be. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether this is blatant or not is not really important; what's important is that is is an elaborate and subtle hoax, which makes it especially harmful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 4, 2011; 14:15 (UTC)
Delete. Seems to be a likely axegrinding hoax. The region of Meshchera exists, but I find nothing to confirm anything this article says about the religious demographics of the people living there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typical hoax. GreyHood ^Talk 15:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. There is no mention of this group in the Russian article on the Meshchera Lowlands (Мещёрская низменность), which doesn't necessarily prove anything, but it doesn't help the case for keeping this article. Herostratus (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, OK, that was written before I read the thread about the hoax and the deletion from our Russian counterpart. Well then, I would say Delete based on lack of sources. It sounds interesting, and if there's anything to it we should have an article on it, and if and when proper sources are provided (Russian ones would be OK) then it can be recreated. In some cases we can keep an article for a while pending provision of sources, but all in all for this one we shouldn't. Herostratus (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Mescherets people seem to exist as an ethnographic group, but there's absolutely no evidence of the religious adherence. A similar article was already deleted at Russian wiki ( see this link ) --Ezhuks (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joke It seems plausible. Mesh exists, and so do Cherts. Anarchangel (talk) 02:01, 10 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African immigrants to New Zealand[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. we don't have articles for every country for "African immigrants to X". I don't see how one for New Zealand is notable. no significant coverage of this topic [9]. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Remarkably uninformative article that appears to have been built around one statistic-- 0.2% of the population of New Zealand was listed as being of African origin, apparently in a 2001 census. As with the "x and y relations" pages, we don't have a policy that "persons from X who are living in Y" pages are notable enough to exist as stubs that one person brings into the world and then leaves for someone else to raise. The reason is that x and y combinations or comparisons are endless. The best rule of thumb is that if you have nothing to say, don't say it. Mandsford 15:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless. DerbyCountyinNZ
Delete no evidence of why it's notable —Felix the Cassowary 21:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds that this article is a dictionary definition combined with trivia. Carrite (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's a stub, with little content. It's also a topic that hasn't been heavily researched. But there is enough reliable information out there to support at least a short article. Here are a few potential sources:
- Udahemuka and Pernice (2010). Does Motivation to Migrate Matter? Voluntary and Forced African Migrants and Their Acculturation Preferences in New Zealand, Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology. doi:10.1375/prp.4.1.44
- African Youth Health and Well-Being: Participatory Action Research Project. Evolve and Victoria University, 2005.
- Guerin, P., & Guerin, B. (2002). Relocating refugees in developed countries: The poverty experiences of Somali resettling in New Zealand. In K. Lyon & C. VoightGraf (Eds.), 5th International APMRN Conference, Fiji 2002: Selected papers (pp. 64-70). Wollongong: University of Wollongong.
- Chile, L. M. (2002). The imported underclass: poverty and social exclusion of black African refugees in Aotearoa New Zealand. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 43:3, pp. 355-366. doi:10.1111/1467-8373.00182
- Humpage, L. (1999). Refuge or Turmoil? Somali Refugee Adolescents in Christchurch Secondary Schools. Christchurch: Refugee Resettlement Support.

--Avenue (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if you can write these into an article perhaps but why isn't this topic really covered in NZ press? LibStar (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm reading too much into your "you", but I don't believe I'm required to drop everything else and produce a good article on the topic for this page to be kept. The onus is more on you to show it can't be made into a decent article. I don't see any real reason why this couldn't develop into something similar to our African Australian article, for instance.

The topic doesn't usually have a high profile in the NZ press (exceptions would include our first hijacker,[10] Peter Mwai's AIDS trial in the 1990s,[11] and perhaps the occasional election year when Winston Peters thinks he can get some mileage out of anti-immigrant rhetoric[12]). But there is ongoing low-level coverage, e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. --Avenue (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've assumed that the article, like its only source, excludes people from South Africa. (It should probably exclude Zimbabweans too.) The article doesn't make this clear. If they're included, we're talking about at least five times as many people, and a much bigger topic. --Avenue (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avenue has mentioned several potential sources. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons outlined by Avenue. Schwede 66 04:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources pointed out by Avenue. A topic which is the primary subject of multiple academic papers is generally presumed to be notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, unless there's some other policy-based reason not to include it (which no one has brought up in this debate). cab (call) 13:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw my delete !vote, not voting !keep either, but there's room for someone to make a real article out of this in the future. In answer to cab's observation, there is no policy automatically including or prohibiting the "X living in Y" pages, and notability has to be asserted, hence a stub doesn't get it. Mandsford 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

H.K.Nanjundaswamy[edit]

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

Fails the general and academic notability guidelines. Google returns no independent coverage and Google News returns a couple of very brief mentions that may not refer to the subject. Google Scholar returns a couple of hits that appear to refer to a HK Nanjundaswamy, but in fact refer to an AM Nanjundaswamy, an Indian food scientist. -- Lear's Fool 06:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 06:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, and the vague wording of his supposed accomplishments in the article makes it difficult to verify them or to tell whether they convey any notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrage Magazine (Student Magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Student magazine, no indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my searches I could find practically no sources independent of the subject of the article and as such this falls foul of WP:GNG - ManicSpider (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persá[edit]

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

Probably original research or possibly a hoax with less than 200 Google hits (all Wikipedia content mirrors). The references don't seem reliable, but this is outside my expertise. —EncMstr (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom.Farhikht (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like original research. None of the cited sources mention the topic. Cnilep (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom & Cnilep. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese poker (loyola college edition)[edit]

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

Clearly not Notable as its own article, and likely not as an addition to Chinese Poker. I would argue the article is not necessarily vandalism, however it does need to go. AKB10 (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft, no sources, no notability, etc. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems very clear. Agree, not vandalism, but also not notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- Fails WP:MADEUP Shii (tock) 10:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a no brainer. SSFF6B (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It comes from Chinese Poker. While Chinese Poker is a gambling casino game, this is a card game ment for groups of four individuals to enjoy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taarasz (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Six days, and still no references? Where's the notability? Elizium23 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense somebody made up one day. 2005 (talk) 08:02, 10 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 nomination withdrawn. I'm already relisting too many AFDs today. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UltraBrowser[edit]

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

I removed the prod from this article because I found some gnews hits. Might not be enough but I felt that an AFD discussion was needed before this article is deleted. Since the article was prodded by an IP user I decided to nominate it myself. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its been available for download for years and has only achieved a couple of Gnews hits. The Atlanta Journal Constitution in particular has written about it several times. There is a proposed notability standard for software which never achieved consensus but which I think is helpful: "It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable general interest, independent secondary sources;" or "It has been the subject of significant product reviews circulated in general interest sources". I think Ultrabrowser is right on the borderline and probably just on the wrong side.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:10, 4 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. Admr Boltz 01:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next Bond Video Game[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Moreover, all information is already currently at James Bond (games)#Future. TenPoundHammer's Law also applies. –MuZemike 03:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 03:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is neither the news or a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 07:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hard time for the hammer to come down. Too bad it wasn't earlier. Shadowjams (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete - not a plausible article title for redirect, the game title is not known (WP:HAMMER), and it's speculation (WP:CRYSTAL). --Teancum (talk) 14:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above rationales. Not that I think I have any new insights to add here, but just contributing toward SNOW... Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 4 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 List of Home and Away characters. Admr Boltz 01:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lucini[edit]

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

All info is already in List of Home and Away characters Magioladitis (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not simply redirect it? AfD is not needed for that outcome, which seems pretty obvious to me. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, agree with Jclemens. Jenks24 (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. People need to stop bringing things to AfD that really need to be merged or redirected. There needs to be a big warning sign saying not to do this. AfD is for DELETING articles.
Back on topic, Category:Home and Away characters is chock full of characters needing to be redirected. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. Glimmer721 ^talk
Redirect - Also when someone finds enough info about the character, they can bring it back.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 19:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. - JuneGloom Talk 19:59, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Tingley[edit]

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

Fails BLP as there is no assertion of notability nor sources to back up inherent claims. Dusti^*poke* 23:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. For God's sake. Philips Exeter (as well as Philips Andover) is among the most prestigious secondary schools in the world; the guy who runs it is more influential/notable/etc than half the college presidents out there. GNews, GScholar, and GBooks all show nontrivial hits, and there'll be lots more out there in the sort of research journals that don't show up online, and under other forms of his name (common problems in googling academics). And if real-world notability is't enough, he's also been tuckerized into a character in the Da Vinci Code guy's novel(s). WP:BEFORE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see why a speedy keep would be appropriate; I see no indication that "the nomination unquestionably is an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption". I can't immediately see that significant coverage in GNews or GBooks, so, if you can HW, please show us. Chzz ► 18:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wolf. President of the Connecticut Association of Independent Schools nails it. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A prestigious school that, as Wolf says, is arguably as important as many colleges. The references support that. Shadowjams (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Further to my earlier comment; going on the actual references we have; Ref 1 is the org itself, not showing notability. Refs 2 and 3 both point to a single online news article, which has the briefest mention of this person; certainly, the story is not substantially about this individual. Ref 4 is also a primary source, not establishing notability. Therefore, I do not see "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" (WP:GNG) or anything approaching it. This person does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. In addition, the policy WP:BLP applies, and we must exercise appropriate caution. Chzz ► 12:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some more sources. I think that being head of four notable schools, including one as significant as Philips Exeter, is noteworthy, and that the third-party coverage we have of him is adequate to support an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 13 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. Admr Boltz 01:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meriel Sawle[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Google results are primarily derivative from this article or fansites and include no news results. Can find very little indication of the author's notability either. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic does not meet the general notability guideline. The article is a plot-only description of a fictional work, written in-universe perspective that lacks real-world perspective and it has zero verifiability because it has no references. Jfgslo (talk) 19:23, 6 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 argh. You guys have put the closer in an awkward position. It's pretty clear that consensus favors merging to an article that doesn't exist. I am going to delete the article for the time being. If, in the future someone actually creates this target article (with more than just the content of this article since there is already a consensus that it is not independently notable) I or any other admin can restore it as a redirect to that article and any content needed can be pulled from the restored history. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 370 (Franklin County, Florida)[edit]

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

Contested prod. non-notable county highway that does not pass the WP:GNG or USRD notability guidelines as a standalone article. Admr Boltz 01:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create List of county roads in Franklin County, Florida and Merge to it. Also, I should note that this page was at Florida State Road 370 previously, as it is a former state road, which may have been notable, but was moved to its current location. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was renamed by me as this is now listed as a county route. The current name is no longer State Road 370 but County Road 370, thus the rename. --Admr Boltz 01:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: The Bushranger (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Admr Boltz 01:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Create list and merge article there. Dough 48 72 05:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Imzadi 1979 → 05:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but there's not a chance this deserves an article on its own from what's presented here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --P C B 16:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SR/CR 370 appears to be the main entry road into Bald Point State Park. Gamweb (talk) 05:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the FDOT Map in my hands, it's not a state road. Being an access road alone is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 18:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like it's part state road & part county road. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the FDOT Map in my hands, it's not a state road. Imzadi 1979 → 18:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted above, it's a former state road that became a secondary state road, then was turned over to the county in the great 1970s decommissionings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
Merge dictionary definition at best, no claim to notability. --Rs chen 7754 22:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge generic undetailed entry best presented with its fellow unnoteworthy county roads in a list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Nicholson[edit]

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

Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and whose books fail WP:BK. All of the books are self-published. No available WP:RS to establish WP:N Qworty (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been lazily adding some sources, and see that he got his own chapter in Horror Prodigies and Legends. That seems a fairly reliable source to me. And his books may have been self-published, but they seem to have done well. I'll keep plugging away at it. - ManicSpider (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources added by ManicSpider constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, making Nicholson pass the GNG. Huon (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abbasi Brothers[edit]

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

A generally non notable music group with a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and also fails to pass WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage found from WIRED ([20]), Cokemachineglow.com ([21]).--Michig (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on 2700 ghits for "abbasi brothers -wikipedia". no news hits, though. I would be opposed to any branch articles for songs or albums, though.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:BAND. Sounds like music I'd probably like, but they don't appear to pass our guidelines at this time. In response to the above, google hits are notoriously poor at guaging notability, and 2700 hits is hardly impressive anyway: I get about 10 times that for my own name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Nothing to remedy the core concerns despite 2 extensions. Not enough to suggest notability. Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of meeting WP:N or WP:MUSIC. The sources found by Michig above are hardly sufficient to satisfy the GNG. Huon (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Watsky[edit]

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

Watsky is creditable. Give it a chance! Someone needs to interview this guy. Not only is he making it, he speaks positive nurtures!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C1GTqWkzbg Look what he said about this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.131.253 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although this comment by an IP editor is out of sequence, it is of interest, and should be counted as a Keep. The IP links to a Watsky rap in which he praises Wikipedia. Fascinating, but we don't keep articles about people just because they like Wikipedia, but rather because they are notable, which Watsky is. Cullen328 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if this is not in the correct format but I am not a regular contributor to wiki. While I agree that the current page is crap and is more of a direct copy of other articles I do believe a page should be dedicated to George Watsky. He has just recently had a viral video with will over a million hits but that is not all that he is noted for. He was on Def Jam and has won several highly noted awards for poetry. He has been featured in the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, san fran guardian, san fran chronicle to name a few. With clean-up this could be a valid encyclopedic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaye55 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the author of a somewhat viral video. I requested more sources and thought I'd give it a few days to see if there was much buzz, but other than one brief profile in the Sun it's basically limited to blogs. I think this is one-event notability at best. Chick Bowen 02:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But he is also very well-known around the Bay Area for his poetry slam performances and has even shared with many famous people such Beyonce, Stevie Wonder, Bonnie Raitt and Mohammed Ali in his performances. --Beatlesnature
- Please read the policy Wikipedia:Notability. Since notability must be verifiable, it is not merely a measure of fame, but of significant coverage in reliable sources. Chick Bowen 16:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed. At best it's a BLP1E, but even that's a stretch since in this case the 1E is extremely minor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is it no longer even possible to check Wikipedia for anything current without a bogus deletion request? Since this was AfDd there has been added a much longer and more detailed source which, in combination with the very large number of brief discussions in the Sun and elsewhere, clearly demonstrates notability. 99.250.12.151 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I'd better log in and sign that comment, because I know from experience that IP votes on these kinds of deletion noms tend to get baselessly tagged as "sockpuppets" or "meatpuppets." Sigh... what is with AfD these days? TiC (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And before anyone starts blathering about "BLP1E," Jesus Christ he was profiled in the Boston Globe in 2009. In a full-length article. When will there be consequences for users who constantly generate bogus deletion noms and can't be bothered to check Google News? TiC (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added references from the San Fransisco Chronicle, the Oakland Tribune, The Sun in London, and college newspapers at George Washington University and Brandeis University. This is absolutely not a case of WP:BLP1E as this talented young poet has been building his career and his credibility for many years. The article isn't perfect, but it sure shows notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has several other valid claims for notability than the one listed above. Bienfuxia (talk) 08:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So a profile in the Boston Globe is enough? A surprising (5 of 6 to be exact) of the current "cites" in the article are from .... today... Just a note... when a media blackout exists, Wikipedia isn't the place to fix it, and I see 0 indication that this individual is notable in the usual sense we make these decisions. my opinion is delete until we see some sources that actually matter for wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~A checkuser might want to make a quick look at some !votes here. Some scream quack. Shadowjams (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources in significant newspapers, by far not all related to one event. Clearly satisfies the GNG. Huon (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Reda[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I walked away from the computer for a few minutes to get a bite to eat and use the bathroom and once again you WikiNazis are ready to delete my page again before I can even get it started. Step away from your computer and get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredizzyd (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I first saw and tagged the article for speedy deletion, the content was only "Dave! Dave! They rant and rave. Dave! Dave! It's you they crave. Dave! Dave! He has no grave. Dave! Dave! What a guy." which looks a lot like vandalism. Nowhere did it mention that these were the words of a song. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not use that language or attack others like you just did, or you will be blocked. I don't care how new you are here, you clearly know better. –MuZemike 17:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - while there is a San Jose Metro interview with Reda, that's all of the reliable sources to be found. That's too little to satisfy WP:BIO in my opinion. Huon (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jhy Cheng Wu[edit]

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

I admit that this is not my field, but I don't think the article sufficiently asserts notability or notability actually exists. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio from here, tagged as such. Also seems non-notable, severe lack of reliable secondary sources. Huon (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aryanil Mukhopadhyay[edit]

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

A Non-notable poet.Most of the books have come out from small publishers and some have come out from kaurab of which the subject himself is one of the editors and creator of its website.Subhas Mukhopadhyay Smarak Samman is no recognized and significant award that too given from no notable society or forum.Most of the refences are just links where his poetry has been published but no significant third party reviews have been provided.Such a bio cannot be placed as notable in wiki.The article should be deleted according to deletion policies.--Poet009 (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 14:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 14:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 10:57, 4 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 of the "crappy keeps and crappy deletes make the consensus impossible to determine" type. T. Canens (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T. P. Rajeevan[edit]

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

Non notable writer.No significant awards. No significant books or reviews upon him as a poet to make him notable.Just statements from people can't make him notable.The article should be deleted in accordance with deletion policies.--Poet009 (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only 950ish ghits, but he had a few articles/interviews in the Indian National Newspaper.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.But only in one newspaper, the Hindu.He has been associated with that newspaper as a contributor also.more references are required to establish notability.An author bio cannot be notable like this.--Poet009 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notableThisbites (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a poet who has published 3 books of poetry and one of his poems was introduced in to film. Obviously the article needs to be sourced better but he deserves a chance. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just publishing books can't make anyone notable.He should introduce something new or something appreciated by a large group of people not just by few. And just one major newspaper features him every time that too the one with which he is associated as a contributor.No other.So notability is a big question here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the exclusive article about the subject appeared today in The Hindu newspaper. Salih (talk) 06:53, 6 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. In the end, it does not appear that there are sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Intervarsity Choral Societies Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG. my original nomination stands. nothing in gnews. and nothing in a major Australian news website: [22]. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete school clubs are, with rare exception, only really of interest to those who actually participate in them, and rarely pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a school club. Unscintillating (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this nomination fails WP:BURO even without the book that has been written about the organization. The organization is surprisingly well-organized, has a national scope, long history, detailed archives, website updated today, organization puts out a magazine 3-5 times a year, and regularly organizes events. Here is a link that discusses an AICSA event. I found some links on Trove, including this one. Unscintillating (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the trove search mainly picks up unrelated coverage of the same acronym. So it regularly organises events, how come it can't get any coverage in Australian press? You would expect a "premier" organisation to. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[insert begins here]

Here is a research article about the Australian press's coverage of AICSA events: Reception, Recognition and Reputation: Australia's Intervarsity Choral Festivals in Mainstream Press Criticism since 1950. Here is a quote, "An examination of the newspaper criticism of festival concerts since they commenced in 1950..." (emphasis added). Do you still think that there is no "coverage in Australian press"? Unscintillating (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Lib, but saying that all of this press is university press is a straw-man, in fact, the article title specifically says that the press involved is "mainstream". We now have evidence of multiple and controversial mainstream newspaper citations; WP:N states, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Unscintillating (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[insert end here]

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) 01:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's Australia's premier choral society; a peak body with national participation and impact. Sufficient reliable information exists to create a verifiable encyclopaedic article so notability may be met even if the primary guidelines at WP:N are made out. As a comment, I would point out that InterVarsity Choral Festival (Australia) should stand or fall with this article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have contacted several members of the IV Choral Society in case they are able to point to media coverage we have not seen. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's reference, those enquiries did not produce results. I'm still inclined to Keep on the basis of it being verifiably a national peak body, and thereby being notable despite failing the primary criteria of WP:N.

Delete unless DFW's enquiries bring up anything. No significant coverage in reliable sources, which is what we need to have a proper, verifiable and reliable article about an organisation. Like Starblind I'm very sceptical of these university association articles. The claim that this is "Australia's premier choral society" seems rather unusual for a peak body of what are essentially university student clubs. That's the kind of claim that could confer notability if it could be verified. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a school club. It never occurred to me that this organization was being run by students, I just assumed that these were music faculty. But it gets yet more interesting, here are links that show that the Erato editor is a research physicist at U of Queensland. [list of AICSA officers, including Erato editor]. [Link showing the AICSA officer is associated with QUMS at the University of Queensland]. [Profile of research physicist at U of Queensland with same unusual name]. While being dead serious about the music, there is an element at AICSA of freedom from everyday work. It takes it out of the ordinary, again, I think that the organization is of obvious interest to an encyclopedia. Do you agree that this topic is of obvious interest to an encyclopedia? Unscintillating (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think an organisation that draws its membership only from university campuses is of obvious interest to an encyclopedia. For example, I'm not seeing any sources saying that the Association is recognised for its achievements by the music community at large. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree with above. It is not notable outside universities reflected in a lack of coverage in non-university press. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libstar, see response above. Unscintillating (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata, I agree that these articles do not make clear the association's contributions to society. Do they produce recordings? Do they generate convention income and atmosphere for communities? Why do they create controversial press? Why are the members so motivated to volunteer? Unscintillating (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Music Centre is the "Australian national section" of two established international music organizations, and their Resonate Magazine notices AICSA here. Under notability policy, Resonate Magazine is a national media taking notice of AICSA, which is "a strong indication of notability". Unscintillating (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The short article is entirely about the Festival. It doesn't mention the Association at all. So it would support an article about the Festival, but not an article about the Association. The Association can'y inherit notability from the Festival unless the Association also gets significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume for the moment that I agree that AICSA is less notable than IVCF. We would then need to have a nuanced discussion about whether to merge AICSA into IVCF, or merge IVCF into AICSA. At the end of the discussion and merge, would we not still have the same information in the encyclopedia? How is the encyclopedia improved? And we haven't even begun to discuss the book that is the current source for the AICSA article. I'm still seeing WP:BURO as the reasonable approach to consensus for this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many problems with having separate articles on non-notable subjects. One of which is that it makes the subject more prone to original research -- if there are insufficient sources, stuff needs to be made up to fill the article. Another problem is that an article on a non-notable subject is less likely to be properly watched. This is a case in point: the article has been a blatant copyright violation for close to five years. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make good points. Was there some reason for (1) deleting the AfD tag on the article and (2) not reverting the article back to before the possible copyvio? Unscintillating (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting back to the clean version should and will be done. It just needs an administrator to delete all of the revisions in between, for which purpose it needs to be listed at WP:CP. I couldn't figure out how to keep the AfD tag on it, but I have no objection if someone figures it out. I've restored the AfD tag - sorry for that. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper citations (post-1999)[edit]

Hello LibStar. I am, by the way, currently one of the assistant editors of the society’s magazine (Erato). The annual festival regularly obtains press coverage in the major daily papers, depending on which city it is being held in, from time to time: both in the form of pre-publicity (e.g. the festival will be putting on concerts), but more importantly, in the form of concert reviews; a sprinkling of these over the decade could be cited since the publication of Peter Campbell’s 1999 book: like the many reviews quoted there, these are only of use to document individual concerts or festivals, and the fact that these form part of an on-going tradition:

Patricia Kelly, “Massed Choristers Enthral”, Courier Mail (Brisbane), 12 July 2000: p.41
Graham Strahle, “Aquarian Confusion: Bernstein, Mass”, Advertiser (Adelaide), 13 Feb. 2001
Neville Cohn, ‘Hobo-inspired masterpiece', West Australian (Perth), 23 February 2004, p.10
Joel Crotty, ‘Chorus celebrating en masse’, Age (Melbourne), 8 February 2005, p.A3:8
Rodney Smith ‘Choir raises roof to praise heaven’, Advertiser (Adelaide), 6 February 2006
Elizabeth Ruthven, “Choir celebrates with real gems”, Mercury (Hobart), 21 July 2009

I suppose the weakness of the article(s) – either the one concerned with the long-standing tradition of national festivals (IVCFs), or the organisation that oversees the running of them (AICSA) – is that no one has seen fit to actually investigate what it is that is special about them and write it up, as opposed to tinkering with the publicity material from the AICSA website (which is what I presume Mkativerata is describing as “copyright infringement”, based on an edit by an anonymous IP back in 2006). AICSA is essentially the umbrella under which the various choral societies — none of them individually notable (re: the above remarks of “school clubs”) — have formed a long-lasting national arts organisation, which as others here have noted is regarded as notable by both the Australian Music Centre and the Australian National Library, which is home to AICSA’s archives: the ANL holds nearly complete sets of publications, concert programmes, reviews of the past 60 festivals, as well as sound recordings of all but one of the festivals. Philip Legge _{User Email Talk} 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do any of these newspaper articles have a write-up about AICSA? Or do they only discuss IVCF? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a very uncommon thing to find in concert reviews! Also, Arts commentary is infrequently posted on-line but often relegated to print only. On the other hand, the articles which provide advance notice of coming festivals will typically mention AICSA at either an explicit or implicit level (e.g. in relation to how the Festival is hosted successively in all the major capitals, with the exception of Darwin, and often visits regional centres: e.g. Newcastle, Goulburn, Launceston; thus the choir usually comprises singers from all of the states and the ACT). I suppose that’s because it provides the journalist with an “angle”.

I should have mentioned before that the main source cited in the article was added by me, back in 2006. The book was published largely out of the related research materials for the author’s PhD thesis (Melbourne Uni. 2000). As a source book it cites a large number of newspaper articles related to each of the festivals, which may address one of the problematic issues here (since someone has criticised that the article has only one source: there are others!). I notice someone else mentioned the article should stand or fall with the other one (IVCFs) – but that isn’t the question under discussion here, which is re: deletion of this article.

If the main concern is over notability, then my suggestion would be that this article should be rewritten from the top (not least to remove the supposed copyright infringement, of AICSA website copypasta) and at the same time merged with the other article, since the unbroken tradition of annual festivals is significant on a national scale (the oldest state Arts Festival is PIAF, which is three years younger); for example, 60 years’ worth of concert recordings provide a substantial historical resource in terms of the gradual changes in performance practice, repertoire choices, and general musical professionalism of personnel over that time.

Cheers Philip _{User Talk Email} 06:57, 8 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. Admr Boltz 01:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aristo (play)[edit]

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

Non notable play, gained local coverage but did not go further. Worm 12:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was reviewed in at least three British papers of general circulation, including the Guardian and starred several people who have their own bios here, including American movie actress Elizabeth McGovern. Clearly seems notable even if badly reviewed and did not transfer to the West End. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews in The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, which are all national, not local, newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Benedejčič[edit]

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

fails WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not guarantee you an article and coverage merely confirms he is an ambassador. [23]. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - covered by numerous reliable sources, a Director-General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems notable enough to me. He did "participate in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources", for example he signed the agreement about the return of the Russian debt to Slovenia.[24] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 14:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a notable ambassador (Slovenia and Russia are key allies) and also former foreign policy advisor to a Prime Minister, an important role in a nation's foreign policy.--TM 01:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - covered by numerous reliable sources. Dont really see the reason for this Afd to be honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

did you actually search for sources? I've noticed you simply copy keep arguments from someone else or otherwise it's the briefest keep per somebody else without explanation or search for sources. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did infact do a quick Google search and came up with 2,910 hits. Also did I find a Slovenian Wikipedia article which shows that the person has interest in slovenia too. Thats good enough for me to stand firm behind my Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your reason for putting up this article for Afd you state that it fails WP:DIPLOMAT, its time to read trough WP:DIPLOMAT again because this article simply does not fail WP:DIPLOMAT.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you provide more detailed explanation of your vote. See WP:GOOGLEHITS for your invalid use of that argument. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 6 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. Admr Boltz 01:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Negar Mottahedeh[edit]

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

An autobiography created by the subject herself which fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Farhikht (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Farhikht (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting person who is connected to many interesting projects. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Interesting" does not confer notability, of which I can find little. Far, far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: cos of Brainquake.Harrypotter (talk) 06:48, 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) 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, doesn't meet notability.Bill william compton (talk) 17:43, 8 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. Admr Boltz 01:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Gray[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted A non-notable article on an actress. Googling reveals little of importance – there appears to be a listing in IMDb, typically for supporting and bit-parts, and facebook and LinkedIn pages. The Article has been tagged as not notable since August 2009, this being unchallenged with relevant viable information; it has not improved, and has never had sources to back up claims of notability. Acabashi (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - she appears to pass the WP:ACTOR guideline, especially for her recurring role in My Husband and I (TV series). Her acting career was essentially over by 2002, so it may be difficult to find online sources. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I added some links and a citation. I think she passes, ever so slightly. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per bearians correct assertion of her passing the WP:ACTOR guideline. and the added links and citation.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 5 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 without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to some appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC) ~~(Apparently something is wrong with the servers and I can't seem to do the deletion at the moment. Hopefully will be resolved shortly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC))~~ Done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call R&B[edit]

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

This is an upcoming single-retailer release of an album within the Now! compilation series in the US. While the main series regularly charts in the top 10 albums and sells relatively well, the themed albums do not. Being distributed to only one retailer makes this an even less notable release. No prejudice against recreation if achieves independent notability through third-party sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep lots of coverage, many copies sold. if anything merge into now series.Thisbites (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage and, since it hasn't been released yet, no copies sold. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a very easy delete to me. I don't see how the single keep !vote here does anything to address the actual issues that led to its nomination. Shadowjams (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though it has been released by now, coverage is unimpressive. A list entry in Now That's What I Call Music! discography should suffice. Huon (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Now! R&B album may not have much coverage at the time but it's not their fault. It is still early and the article has potential to not be deleted once the compilation gets more attention to an extent. And it is not fair this is the only Now! album article considered for deletion anyway. GETONERD84 (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments: Firstly, that other stuff exists is no reason to keep this article. If there are other Now! album articles with such a lack of reliable secondary sources, maybe they should be deleted as well, but this discussion is just about the merits of a single article. Secondly, if this album gains additional coverage in the future, the article may be recreated. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and keeping articles because the subject might gain significant coverage in the future seems premature. Huon (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of whether keep or delete, I point to the Allmusic entry which is notably...blank. Clearly they don't care enough to include this entry. The NOW Web site also omits it being a Walmart exclusive; hence, iTunes won't have it and they see no point including it. Personally, I say keep only because it is in a major series and it does belong chronologically, and that is enough reason. It's the same reason an unpopular album by an artist is still included, because the artist himself is notable. My only concern is how the Walmart-only bit ties in. If "Delete" is the result, I ask that the nominator do the tidy-up work linking "1990s" and "37" to each other where the R&B article is presently linked. CycloneGU (talk) 04:55, 9 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. Admr Boltz 01:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boom Gonzales[edit]

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

No sources. Either hoax, or unnotable. bender235 (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the deplorable condition of the article, this guy seems to be real and a notable dj in the Phillipines. Gets 612,000 ghits.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete unreferencedThisbites (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having no references is not necessarily a reason for deletion. Per WP:BEFORE, one should try to find out if any references can reasonably be found.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article lacks in terms of sources, but as a Filipino I can confirm that this guy really exists and is notable as a dj/sportscaster. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep new article[25] by new and inexperienced editor.[26] Add available sources,[27] through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Lambda Beta[edit]

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

Non-notable organization -- I searched Google books & news and found nothing. Mesoderm (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:ORG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Borkificator (talk) 12:21, 6 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 Desktop virtualization Admr Boltz 01:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PCoIP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a promotional article, created by a single-purpose account (User:BngWiki), about a non-notable product from a company called Teradici. Our article on the product is poorly sourced to press releases peppered with a few brief mentions in trade publications — nothing indicating "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There has been a proliferation of promotional and spam articles from desktop virtualization vendors (SoThin, Virtual Bridges, MiniFrame, and 10ZiG come to mind) over the past year or so, and PCoIP is not significantly different from the others in terms of notability — it's just made it a little bit longer due to the slightly higher occurrence of brief, passing mentions after they signed an agreement a while back with VMware (which seems to have gone nowhere and was "mere short-term interest"). Bluntly put, every indication is that it's spam, created by a spammer, that's poorly sourced, and, after a careful review, simply not-notable. jæs (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly violates WP:NOTE and WP:ARTSPAM. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the tone of the article may need some adjustment - the subject itself (this specific implementation of KVM-over-IP functionality) is notable - this specific implementation ("PCoIP") is utilized by many products. You will find zillion of google hits on that. Alinor (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the worst case it should be redirected to Desktop virtualization or KVM/IP. Alinor (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Voytovych[edit]

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

The creator of this article has a conflict of interest, as she or he either is Alexander Voytovych or closely associated. This page is clearly promotional, as are the overwhelming majority of internet hits for "Alexander Voytovych." Uyvsdi (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Comment Neither wp:COI nor wp:NPOV is a reason for deletion. You wrote a much better rationale on the articles talkpage, which I will reproduce below before the Keep voters come in with "no valid reason for deletion given". Yoenit (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article is clearly connected to the subject, if not the same person. "Alexander Voytovych" does get substantial amounts of hits through Google, but they are self-generated (wiki mirror sites, linked in, promo sites (http://www.artists.com.ua/ -> Art Atelier: Ivanka and Alexander Voytovych). Cannot find very much in third-party, published secondary sources — and definitely not enough to establish that this is a notable artist. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi There, In spite all my effort, I don’t expect any understanding or help from the other side regarding the English version of the article about Alexander Voytovych. Therefore if one insists on deleting this particular article then go ahead as it seems to me there is no room for democratic thinking on your website whatsoever. I’d like to add a few more words as my final statement. Wikipedia says: “Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The art works and art life of the artist is the sourcefor academic press, Ukrainian media, academic institutions, as well as poets, writers and publications use his paintings & drawings to illustrate books. The artist takes a part in a busy art life in the Ukraine presenting a number of exhibitions & art projects. Having said that I see that there is no enough evidence for one?????
Bodnar O./Боднар О. — Л. Тайнавтілення. — Ужгород: Карпати, 2009. — С. 237—239. — fоtо: с. 227, 270.ISBN 978-966-671-179-6
Gavrosh A./Гаврош О. Тілолучниці. — Л.:Піраміда, 2006. — 56 с. — Ілюстрації: О.Войтович. ISBN 966-8522-69-6 Parameter error in ((ISBN)): checksum
Didyk N./Дідик Н. Fundamentals of composition. — Ужгород: Мистецькалінія, 2009. — С.44. ISBN 978-966-8764-96-7
Kosmolinska N./Космолінська Н. Art chat on "Green sofa" // FINE ART. — 2009. — № 4. — С. 114 — 115.
Chervatiuk L./Черватюк Л. Women's image in the Ukrainian modern art. — К.:Навчальнакнига, 2007. — C. 33 — 34.ISBN 978-966-329-110-9 * Shumylovych B./Шумилович Б. Women, paintings and allegories in high heels. // Образотворчемистецтво. — 2008. — № 4. — С. 92 — 93.

If one convinced that the article has to be deleted, than do not hesitate to do so, but before that please give me a straight answer to my question. What is the difference between the article about Alexander Voytovych and, for example, the Herb Roe’s article, why the mentioned article is considered more accurate? I must highlight once again that instead of explaining what has to be changed or corrected on the page, one awards us with thenoticeboards. Regarding self-promotion which was mentioned a few times I’d like to make it clear : the artists is a Ukrainian and naturally all sources are Ukrainian, and if the mentioned language is unknown to one it doesn’t meant that it allows one doubts the genuine sources. The Ukrainian and Russian versions of Wikipedia have accepted the article and honoured it, which says a lot.I had in my mind to present more Ukrainian artist, however having such an experience; I’d rather leave this business behind thanks to you. Thanks for co-operation. From my point of view this discussion is exceeded, feel free to delete the article!--Artvoyt (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have time to read through them right now, as my Russian is a bit rusty and my Ukrainian even worse, but I would point out that the Russian and Ukrainian articles have plenty of references, many of which appear to be from reliable sources. These searches may be useful to polygots:

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

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 3 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) 00:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Phil Bridger's latest comment. The article needs to be worked on. The artist is notable. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Phil Bridger's latest comment. and Nipsonanomhamata.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:04, 5 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. While the overall topic is undoubtedly notable, the specific objects which may or may not be planets or even exist at all are not "automatically notable" and are therefore subject to WP:N, as well as WP:CRYSTAL. This may turn out to be a find of massive scientific import someday, or it may be nothing, or a ball of ice, etc... No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to some appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOI 701.03[edit]

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

The article discusses an exoplanet candidate, not even one officially announced. By definition there can not be enough reliable sourcing for something that the team themselves do not even yet know exists. If this article is notable enough to have an entry then pretty much every other possibility you can think of is. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basically you're saying that something reported by NASA (see reference) is not notable. It doesn't matter if the subject exists or not, the message was purported by a reliable source. De728631 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So why not create an article on all KOI's? On all the objects in the list of false positives? on all the suspected Eclipsing Binaries? Is every bit of data from a scientific study notable enough for an article of it's own? This wasn't announced by NASA, only the Kepler-11 planets were announced as actual planets. Frankly your claim in the edit summaries that all "Astrononmy related topics are notable" is ridiculous, not everything related to astronomy is. There are lots of things reported in reliable sources that don't necessarily deserve an article, all sorts of data from scientific studies are published all the time for example. I think most people would accept they do not all deserve a separate article (or even a mention!), especially when it is not known whether they are even real effects. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "So why not create an article on all KOI's? On all the objects in the list of false positives? on all the suspected Eclipsing Binaries?" Actually that might be a good idea. There are lists on Wikipedia about almost anything that is remotely notable, e.g. all the lists of minor planets. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Frankly your claim in the edit summaries that all 'Astrononmy related topics are notable' is ridiculous, not everything related to astronomy is." There is consensus about geographical topics, e.g. all town and village stubs are generally not to be deleted so I don't see why this shouldn't be expanded to reliably sourced accounts of findings in astronomy. De728631 (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The consensus for astronomical objects only applies to comets and asteroids. Your consensus does not yet apply to candidate extrasolar planets.—RJH (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a patently absurd suggestion - there's no way every single object in astronomy is notable. SIMBAD lists 5 million distinct objects (mostly stars); NED has 162 million 'unique objects' (almost all galaxies); neither of those include solar system objects, and there are many many times that number of objects in various astronomical catalogues that no-one has bothered to incorporate into the databases. Very few astronomical discoveries are actually notable. Modest Genius ^talk 22:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Add to that an article in the NYT reporting the discovery of 1200 such candidates, 68 of which are similar to KOI 701.03 [28]. De728631 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of them have an article? There's a reason for that, to most sensible people they do not yet have the notability to warrant a mention. These facts have been noted on the Kepler (spacecraft) page, and that's as far as these objects need mentioning for now. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG—Candidate object of interest has no secondary sources available at this time. This object has the lowest vetting rating in the original, solitary source paper and thus might not even be real. How did the editor come up with a planetary mass? Is that OR?—RJH (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A candidate planet is definitely not notable until confirmed (with the possible exceptions of Planet X, Vulcan (planet) etc). There are more than 1000 such candidates in the latest Kepler data release alone, and they're only going to be become more numerous as more data is obtained over the next few years. The fact that this is the 'most Earth-like' candidate pulled out of their database is meaningless, since the numbers are essentially just educated guesses at present - there's probably only a 50% chance at best that there's even a planet there. It will almost certainly turn out that this is not the most Earth-like exoplanet known, just from the statistics and massive error bars. Modest Genius ^talk 21:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep or Merge Actually, NASA's Kepler Team ranges the possibility of being real about 90%. Oh, come on, look at the characteristics. What would happen if this turns out to be a real habitable planet,as it seems to be the probability by 90%?195.57.146.182 (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The actual Kepler team believe out of all these candidates 80% may end up being real planets, but many of the Kepler candidates are around stars which with present technology such small candidates cannot be confirmed (too bright etc). In all likelihood we won't know if KOI 701.03 is real or not for decades because currently the RV follow-up probably can't see it. Btw, it was separate researchers that stated a possibility of 90%. However even if the false positive rate for the entire sample turns out to be low, which we don't know, for individual objects and particularly ones thought to be as small as this one, the likelihood they are real drops dramatically. As RJHall said this object has the lowest vetting rating, and I suspect it will remain so with present technology, so applying a blanket figure for false positives over the entire sample to a single candidate is logically incorrect. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition it is not a particularly good candidate for being in the habitable zone anyway. The Kepler team have apparently not learned from the saga of Gliese 581 c and have used a definition of the habitable zone based on "these blackbody temperatures look nice". Oh well. Icalanise (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete to its star article (whatever that may be, the article does not say). It is not overly notable until it is confirmed. As it is a candidate, it is not a real "geographic" location, it is only postulated. Its star is a real "geographic" location. If we can't determine the star, then delete per WP:CRYSTAL, it is not a location article, since the location specified in the article is not confirmed to actually exist, and many candidate planets are later found to not exist, so candidates are not inherently notable, unless the candidature has some other effect other than just being announced. 64.229.101.119 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find this star in SIMBAD (either from the identifier or the coordinates) and the single source from the article only lists the KOI. It seems likely that the same source would need to be used for the star article, so it would suffer from the same issues. Probably in the future, when this star system is examined in more detail, there will be enough sources to build a proper article.—RJH (talk)
Keep this has a good chance to be a planet in the end, and it is super notable for being the closest Earth-like planet so far. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the error bars are so huge that it's almost certainly not the most Earth-like exoplanet that we know of, if it even exists. Modest Genius ^talk 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - though I'm not sure where to at the moment (if we had a List of Kepler objects of interest that might be a good target). Previous consensus at WP:ASTRO is that unconfirmed exoplanet candidates are not sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. As a general comment about the state of the article as it is now, pushing the habitability of a 1.73 Earth radius planet seems premature when all but the very hottest super-Earths (evaporated cores?) are turning out to be mini-Neptunes. Icalanise (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged into Kepler_(spacecraft)#Mission_results_to_date, which already discusses other press releases and early results from the Kepler team. Modest Genius ^talk 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Habitable Planet Candidates or something similar. In the next few years, all of these candidate planets are likely to be either confirmed or disconfirmed, but because this one is currently thought to be one of the most "earthlike" of the bunch, it will certainly be under the most scrutiny. The number of notable articles in both academia and in the lay sphere will most likely cross the WP:SNOWBALL mark, if it hasn't already. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Likely Earth-like planet awaiting confirmation. Planets are big things. They are inherently notable. A planet that looks like Earth that already has multiple sources talking about it and the number of sources is likely to grow? This should be an easy decision. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When and if the presence of this object is confirmed, it might be notable enough to have an article on, but right now it's literally one of thousands of equally-non-notable signals that might be a planet in a large data set. Stating that it's noteworthy as the "most earth-like" candidate is silly - there's a large pool of such candidates. The fact that one looks slightly more earth-like than all of the others amongst all of the random noise means nothing. The "mission results" section of Kepler (spacecraft) does a sufficient job of summarizing the results as they presently stand. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOI 701.01 is one of a small handful in the dataset that are potentially both within the HZ of their stars and roughly Earth-sized. As such, it will be the object of close scrutiny by the scientific community and the public at large. Wikipedia readers want to know what objects the scientists are most interested in; Wikipedia editors have a responsibility to provide that information. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, write about it _after_ that "close scrutiny" occurs, not before. I'll also remind you - again - that it's entirely possible that a different candidate object will end up being the most earth-like _confirmed_ world even within this data set, so focusing on this one is very premature. You don't appear to appreciate how preliminary these results are, or how much uncertainty there is in the estimated properties of these candidate objects. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the paper, I understand the uncertainties involved. This is not an article about a planet...it's an article about an interesting signal. The fact that it's interesting makes it a subject of scrutiny in academia and in the media (along with the five or so other interesting signals). That alone establishes notability, whether or not the signal turns out to be a planet or mere noise. Also, I don't need a WP:CRYSTAL ball to tell me it will receive close scrutiny...I have several scientific papers and a couple media mentions that tell me it has already received close scrutiny. The fact that it will probably receive more makes it a case of WP:SNOWBALL. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Refreshing my memory about WP:NOTE, I find that, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." The General Notability Guideline says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." As a number of reliable sources have been provided, and many more are certain to come, it would seem that this article satisfies the requirements for inclusion unless there's something I haven't noticed in WP:NOT that would exclude it. In particular, I would note that there's nothing in the guidelines requiring a subject to be scientifically verified...or indeed real...merely being mentioned by a significant number of reliable sources is sufficient for exclusion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw your attention to the fact that we have articles on many non-real, and/or non-verified phenomena, a few examples of which I've listed below. In particular, notice that many of the specific items on these lists also have their own stand-alone articles.

List of UFO sightings

Spontaneous human combustion

Cold fusion

Loop quantum gravity

Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of which have been significantly discussed in wider sources and have some historical significance to make them notable. KOI 701.03 has not. This distinction was hinted at further up the page when Planet X and Vulcan (planet) were noted as exceptions by User:Modest Genius. They may be hypothetical but the subject is widely discussed, often over decades/centuries, and hence are notable for that reason. Neither KOI 701.03 or any of the others yet to be confirmed are, the only reason some appear to think it is notable is because if it even exists it may be "Earth-like", which as has already been pointed out a number of times is original research anyway.

Btw I should point out "other stuff exists" is not a terribly good argument, a lot of **** on Wikipedia has simply not been cleared out yet. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The notability is not directly related whether the object is earthlike or not. Notability is based solely upon whether it is mentioned in reliable sources or not--not whether they're historically important, not whether they're verified or not--but only, only because they are found in reliable sources. The fact that it could be an earthlike world might be the sources' underlying reason for mentioning it, but that's not the reason for including it here. Yes, less recent examples are likely to have more scholarship, but Wikipedia policy does not provide a hard line for what constitutes "significant" coverage in reliable sources. I contend that several scientific papers and a couple of newspaper mentions--and almost certainly lots more to come--constitutes significant coverage. ((Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, whether you consider our articles **** or not has little to do with why they're there. Many of the above mentioned articles have already survived deletion attempts for the same reason that this article should survive; because their discussion in WP:RELIABLE sources is sufficient for inclusion per the low bar set by WP:NOTE. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As mentioned above, this is NOT an article about a planet, it's an article about an interesting signal, and its mention in reliable sources establishes notability per WP:NOTE. Despite this, some editors have been quick to point out the likelihood of verification, or lack thereof. The Borucki paper does assign each of its candidate planets a confidence interval ranking number of 1 through 4. KOI 701.03 is in Rank 3, which means it has a greater than 60% likelihood of confirmation. Of the other four "interesting signals", KOI 1026.01, KOI 268.01, and KOI 854.01 are in Rank 3 or 4, both of which are in the roughly >60% confidence interval, while KOI 326.01 is in Rank 2, which makes it >80% confidence. Also note that Rank 1 is only given to those candidates already published elsewhere as confirmed planets. Finally, note that the article's wording has now been cleaned up a tad to avoid OR (more cleanup to come) and new sources have been added (likely more sources to come). Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this proves to not be a planet, it will quickly be forgotten, as many other such signals indicative of planets have been already, with no further study or mention of them ever to come about. So, either this is WP:CRYSTAL planet or a WP:NOTNEWS article about a signal. If it's a signal article, it would appear to violate WP:NOTNEWS. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: WP:NOT#NEWS says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The first reports of potentially habitable exoplanets are of enduring import, even if some of them are later found to be false positives. See our articles on Martian canals for a similar case. This isn't some passing fad or flash-in-the-pan fluke; it's an historic moment regardless of the outcome of followup research. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When writing an article about the first 'potentially habitable' (which is a very poorly defined term anyway) exoplanet, the first detection of a signal of it would indeed be notable and should be included in any such article. But until the planet is confirmed to have those properties, the signal is just one of many hundreds of promising candidates. As an analogy, if an oncologist came out with a paper saying that they had identified a promising new cancer drug, would that be worth an article? If it did indeed turn out to be an effective treatment, as shown by further trials, then it would indeed be notable. But if it turned out not to work (a quirk in the data) or to have serious side-effects that prevent widespread deployment, it would not be notable enough for an article. KOI 701.03 is in a similar position - if confirmed, this could potentially be important. But it could turn out not to be a planet at all, or if it is a planet it could (in fact is highly probably that it will) turn out not to be 'potentially habitable'. Modest Genius ^talk 22:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might not find it notable, but reliable sources do, and therefore Wikipedia does as well. Also, you shouldn't make assumptions about the likelihood of confirmation (estimated at 60%), nor about how Earthlike it'll turn out to be. I believe the radius error bar is something like +/- .61, so it's equally likely to turn out to be MORE earthlike as it is to turn out less earthlike. And, yes potential medicines should be in Wikipedia if they generate comment by reliable sources. In fact even medicines that are proven to be ineffective can have articles. See Homeopathy and Snake Oil. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even one of the first reports. If looking at the first reports of potentially habitable planets other than Earth, there is Mars itself, which you point out we have an article for Martian canals. As for exoplanets, there have been many claims of habitability prior to this hypothetical planet. One of the first exoplanets announced, 70 Virginis b was called "Goldilocks" because of potential habitability of hypothetical moons around it. Then there's the relativley recent Gliese 581 c. This is only one of the latest in a long line of reports of potentially habitable planet candidates, that date back to the 1800's. As it is not one of the first potentially habitable planets announced, that reason goes out the window. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a grand total of less than ten exoplanet candidates that appear to be the right size and position to be habitable. You'll notice that both 70 Virginis b and Gliese 581 c have articles even though neither is anything approaching earthlike. So, why do they have articles? Because they generated significant coverage by reliable sources, and therefore they are notable. The current Kepler finds hold even more promise than those two, and they are far more notable than the dozens of other exoplanets that we currently have articles for. Again, the threshold for notability is coverage by reliable sources, NOT whether individual editors find them important. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between KOI-701.03 and the cases of 70 Vir b and GJ 581c are that the latter two planets are confirmed to exist, regardless of whether or not they are located within the habitable zone. On the other hand, the existence of KOI-701.03 is not (yet?) robustly demonstrated. Previous consensus at WP:ASTRO is that unconfirmed exoplanets are not notable. Icalanise (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The are a lot of RS for PSR 1829-10 planet, the first pulsar planet announced, first seemingly solid exoplanet announced, but we don't have an article on it. That planet does not exist. This planet candidate has not been proven to exist, so it is just a news event at the moment. It is not the first planet candidate to be announced to be potentially habitable, it is not the first exoplanet candidate, it is not one of the first in either of those categories. It's just another in a long line of planet candidate announcements, several of those announcements being potentially habitable. There have been more than 10 such announcements in the past. (such as 5 in 1999 another in 1996 -- this has been going on for decades) 65.94.47.11 (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The candidates you cite from '99 and '96 were gas giants. These candidates are more than two orders of magnitude smaller than those. Again, these are the first that are potentially earthlike in both size and orbital radius. That's a significant distinction. As for "PSR B1829−10 planet-", we do have an article about its host star, PSR B1829−10. The sole claim to notability: that it was the subject of a retracted exoplanet claim. If, as a compromise, you want to merge this content into an article about KOI 701 in order to follow the PSR B1829−10 precedent, I can get behind that. Although I would prefer, as I've said above, to merge this and any other KOI articles into an article called Earthlike exoplanet candidates or something similar. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that an "Earthlike exoplanet candidates" article would be a good idea: you'd have to come up with a decent definition of what constitutes an Earthlike planet. Furthermore it is not entirely clear that KOI-701.03 would meet such criteria. Icalanise (talk) 22:16, 11 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.