< 9 January 11 January >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Horror Movie Timothy Mark Presents Chains[edit]

The Horror Movie Timothy Mark Presents Chains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite un-notable movie that fails WP:GNG. No third party sources, article's creator removed PROD tag. First Light (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware State University shooting[edit]

Delaware State University shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I been looking through Category:Spree shootings in the United States And this is one the events that seems To Fail WP:EVENTs. No lasting impact it seems to be run of the mill crime that just happened to be on a University Campus. put it perspective The School's Student News Paper Didnt even mention on the anniversary of the shooting. An unannounced Training Drill for the Nursing Program that centered on School rampage that caused panic months later did not mention this incident. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The numbers are equally balanced here but the arguments are not. Some of the keep arguments merely allude to a policy or guideline, while User:Erik, in particular, gives the most considered argument about the article. Erik's concerns were not really addressed, even by the comment and links added by User:Calathan. Recreation is possible if this can be sourced, and I'm not averse to userfying if someone wants to work on this. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saeko Matsuda[edit]

Saeko Matsuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Editor stated "reference, rm prod as he was a producer in several notable series per WP:CREATIVE". I don't think that being a television producer is sufficient evidence that this "person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". In fact, the producer is generally more of an administrative or organizational position, so doesn't fall under WP:CREATIVE at all. While we can confirm that this person exists there's no other biographical information available in the references provided or in web searches. Fails WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contrast Matsuda with Charles Roven, for example. Many of Roven's films are significant or well-known, even though his biographical detail is lacking. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, I was planning to reply to your earlier comment on the notability of his works this weekend when I will have more time. I'll reply now though and try to add more if necessary. Contrary to what you've said, at least one the anime TV shows he produced did when a signifcant award, as Kamichu! won an excellence prize at the Japan Media Arts Festival. Furthermore, I am confident that Kamichu!, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, and Xenosaga: The Animation have recieved multiple reviews from reliable sources (which I can link here this weekend when I have time to look them up). I'm sure that it would not require "a pretty major scraping-together of sources" to make those articles decent, depite the fact that they are lacking in references right now. Calathan (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to reconsider if one of the works is significant or well-known; I was not having any luck finding the multiple reviews for the different works involved. Let me know if there's anything you find. Regarding scraping-together, I've just seen citespam in the past to make the topic look especially notable. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, turns out I had no time this weekend. But anyway, Kamichu!, Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, and Xenosaga: The Animation have all been reviewed by the reliable sources that normally review anime, such as Anime News Network ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) and Mania.com ([9], [10],[11]). Those sites are well accpeted as reliable sources, having been used as sources in several featured articles here. Since WP:CREATIVE #3 specifically lists having reviews as one thing that shows a work is "significant or well-known", I don't see any way to say that he doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE if it applies to producers. Now, I'm presonally not certain that WP:CREATIVE does apply to producers, but given that you consider it to apply to producers, I don't think it is reasonable for you to say he doesn't pass that guideline. Calathan (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2 Live Crew. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 06:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Kid Ice[edit]

Fresh Kid Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no assertion of notability, no references unsourced BLP  Velella  Velella Talk   22:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Creating a redirect at this title would be acceptable (plausible search term), but the consensus here was for outright deletion. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Home and Away cast members[edit]

List of Home and Away cast members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pointless page, there are already other lists of characters and so on. It's not even sourced and so on... the only difference is this list is "meant" to focus on the actors. List of Home and Away characters is already in use for the list... plus they get a mention in List of past Home and Away characters.. RAIN..the..ONE HOTLINE 22:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Roetter[edit]

Chris Roetter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer, fails WP:MUSICIAN. Although him beginning in Emarosa at the young age of 18, he was replaced with Jonny Craig wherein the band then rose to their mass success leaving Roetter forgotten and only on the recording of one EP. Roetter, now being 21 now, he has been in two other bands that both do not have Wikipedia articles which leaves Roetter just as not-notable. - GunMetal Angel 21:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emarosa? Even though he was only in that band for just a year, which is rarely known and was in two others after them that both don't have articles? • GunMetal Angel 00:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the only thing he's famous for at all, so if anyone came here searching for him sending them to Emarosa would be reasonable. But I've never heard of him or the band and have no objection against deletion. Pburka (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's also famous for Agraceful, and Like Moths to Flames recently. LMTF is getting quite popular. This article was created when Agraceful still had an article, before its deletion after it being removed from a radio rotation. I don't know if this should be deleted or not. As the author, I'll just leave it be. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 19:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear, and no valid keep rationale is offered--Bearian is incorrect in asserting that WP:BAND holds that touring nationally is sufficient to attain notability per the guideline. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Gary[edit]

Brian Gary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was an unreferenced biography also flagged with a notability query since Sept 2008 (soon after the article was created). Consequently it was proposed for deletion yesterday. An IP editor contested the Prod and added a reference showing the subject as a sideman on a record. That is insufficient to meet the notability guidelines for musicians, hence bringing it to AfD to propose Deletion. Note that (1) the subject is also a real-estate businessman, but again seems not to meet Notability in that sphere; and (2) Google brings up another person of the same name (a film director/editor). AllyD (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Doesn't the touring need to involve notable reviewed concerts and critical discussion of the subject's contribution (#4)? I'm curious, as if it just comes down to a past of touring, then just about every past member of every past band would surely meet WP:MUSICBIO? Coming back to this particular discussion, it is possible that performing in the bands for multiple musicians (Money, Akins, Davis) might meet #6, but that maybe depends on an interpretation of ensemble member vs backing musician? AllyD (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenier E. Marmolejos[edit]

Jenier E. Marmolejos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, WP:FANCRUFT itself addresses all three of these concerns:
Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. The term is a neologism derived from the older hacker term cruft, describing obsolete code that accumulates in a program.
While "fancruft" is often a succinct and frank description of such accumulations, it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil.
As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion.
In short, WP:NPOV, or WP:OR are to be considered at AfD, but not FANCRUFT itself, which apart from an internal WP reference to the jargon used by Wikipedia editors, contains two logical premises:
  1. Some FANCRUFT are NPOV or OR
  2. Articles that are NPOV or OR are deleted (the "primarily" in "primarily due to" translates to: "or some other deletion reason")
The logical consequence (conclusion) is left unstated, but a valid progression leads to:
  1. FANCRUFT are deleted if they are NPOV or OR, or some other deletion reason ("primarily" indicating not because of being FANCRUFT alone)
FANCRUFT recuses itself from deletion discussions. It has never been specified as a rationale for deletion on WP:DELETE, and should never be the sole rationale. DELETE mentions only those three rationales specifically, along with WP:OR and some practical/legal considerations such as COPYVIO and vandalism. The standard disclaimer in DELETE, 'including, but not limited to', indicating that it is not exclusive, was never discussed, and only once mentioned in Talk, in 2007. I assert that this wording was not accepted by the community because they believed it was necessary to include essays as the sole rationale for deleting articles, and it should be replaced with a less equivocal sentence, "Other guidelines or policies may be applicable, and in exceptional cases, essays, although these should not be used as a primary rationale".
The article also offers yet more evidence that AllFail is less reliable than IMDb. Allmovie has Jenier listed as Jenifer. Anarchangel (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mecha A.D.: Why Do Robots Fall in Love[edit]

Mecha A.D.: Why Do Robots Fall in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Just pointing out that the author's page was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenier E. Marmolejos. If the article on this book is deleted, the closing admin should speedy delete Category:Novels by Jenier E. Marmolejos and Category:Mecha Chronicles novels per the C1 speedy criteria. Even if this isn't deleted those should probably be deleted, but might as well wait until the category is empty (assuming that happens) and speedy them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMStellation[edit]

COMMStellation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This sounds like a great thing, but there no reliable sources supporting this project's notability, and I couldn't find any either. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microsat Systems Canada Inc.[edit]

Microsat Systems Canada Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this company is notable. It seems that they have a contract with NASA, but that's all the news I can find--and even that is not on a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Jphil125 (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP.  Sandstein  07:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Volpe[edit]

Isabelle Volpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the criteria for Notagle (entertainers). Specifically (1) has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, (2)Does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. nor (3) Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MicroWheel[edit]

MicroWheel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, does not pass WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Jphil125 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Donald Raymer[edit]

Ivan Donald Raymer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not appear to be notable, just searching the name on google news doesn't yield results. The references are mostly people. Nominated for speedy deletion, but was contested by page creator. Epass (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owning multiple bus routes does not appear in the notability guidelines, nor in policy, and the same applies to "it's important locally"; discounting these comments, consensus is clearly in favour of deletion. If you do not make arguments which cite policy, they will not be taken into account; AfD is not a vote. The weight of an argument is what is considered, not the weight of the emotion behind it. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Sprinter[edit]

Dorset Sprinter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable bus company that operates one regular bus route from Ringwood to Southampton. Does not pass WP:COMPANY. Scottdrink (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on this please? I do not understand what you are saying. How can adding sources that help establish notability mean that the subject does not meet our notability standards? Arriva436talk/contribs 21:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a bus operator that runs one single route. Minimac makes a remark below about what's generally deemed notable; I'm not aware of inherent notability for such a company, but I gladly stand corrected. But this one has only one route. It is entirely possible that the company, for one reason or another, generated interest in the press which would make it notable despite running only one route, but I didn't see that. Moreover, the links pointing to for instance council minutes are not evidence of the kind of interest that would make a subject notable. But I fear that you are misreading my comment; my apologies if I was not clear. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--Thanks Alzarian. Most of what a regular Google search produces does not count as reliable--and that a Commons category is no evidence of notability should go without saying. Above you mentioned the Buses Magazine reference. That's not available online, apparently, but I note that the article is only one page long--it can't be a very in-depth discussion. And I wonder: what do you mean with "the topic as a whole [shows significant coverage]"? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clutch Group[edit]

Clutch Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable outsourcing company. Yahoo/Bing search turned up mostly press releases. Blueboy96 20:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Marshall[edit]

Todd Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources to assert individual's notability. Initial search hits yield personal page, LinkIn, blogs, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a bit late to add, but he illustrates a lot of new discoveries (among them being the Sahara crocs and Eodromaeus) and gives our first view of these creatures. Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 19:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry D'Amigo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jerry D'Amigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor leaguer who has not been in the NHL. Was previously nominated for deletion. The result was Delete. Iftelse (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dye Solar Cell (DSC) manufacturers[edit]

List of Dye Solar Cell (DSC) manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined, copyvio fixed; Wikipedia is not a directory; this is an unlikely search term; Wikipedia is not a link farm. Wtshymanski (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Every List can be seen as "directory"...
  2. Search term is not unlikely for people interested in dye solar cells and list is linked on dye solar cell page
  3. Links have been deleted → no link farm
  4. Explanation about "dye solar cells" can be found on the appropriate page (linked: See also)

Please consider improvement not deletion --BinFlo (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. page was moved to userspace (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren O'Connell[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lauren O'Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no references beyond her own youtube channel, and a single Rochester City Paper article, therefore fails WP:RELY. Article as been deleted before and as one main contributor. ccwaters (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete A valid argument is made that the AfD shouldn't be bound strictly by the letter of notability guidelines. But in this AfD, that argument does not have support and consensus is to the contrary. Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Pelc[edit]

Dan Pelc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD; has never appeared in a fully-professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and also fails WP:GNG GiantSnowman 19:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article says he last played at under-17 level, and is now 24 - I very much doubt he will become a full international, and saying he will violates WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 19:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has NOT played for his country professionally and don't say he will either because that would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Delete because of failures of WP:GNG Spiderone 09:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say "professionally"? He's played, there also seems to be enough press coverage of his various trials and movements to make this article potentially useful (or "pass GNG", as the wikilawyers would say).--Kotniski (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided are nothing more than just run-of-the-mill and having trials does not mean to say that he will ever become a notable player. Spiderone 10:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has NOT played for his country; he has played for his country's under-17 team - a big difference! Read WP:NFOOTBALL, which says international notability comes from playing in an "officially sanctioned senior international competition", which he hasn't done. NFOOTBALL continues - "Players who have appeared [...] in a fully-professional league" - again, something he hasn't done. As for this so-called coverage, read WP:NTEMP - "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as [...] sports coverage [...] is not significant coverage." Are you still positive he meets notability requirements? GiantSnowman 14:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be treating these guidelines as fixed law - he's come pretty close to meeting the guidelines in several different ways, though perhaps not to the letter, to the extent that Wikipedia can provide verifiable information about him and expect that people who might have come across him in various contexts might be looking here for more complete information about him. I just don't see how the encyclopedia is improved by deleting this sort of article. --Kotniski (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how is he "pretty close"?! He hasn't played at ANY international representative level for 7 years, and he's not signed to ANY team, let alone a professional one...GiantSnowman 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could say all of that about Pele too... --Kotniski (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pele has played at both professional and international levels, and so remains notable. This guy has done nothing of note. GiantSnowman 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is what I mean - he's almost played professionally (in various senses) and he's played at almost international level. This will be my last word on the subject, but I still think if you put all this together he comes out as meeting the spirit of the notability requirements. The fact that it was 7 or 70 years ago makes no difference - Wikipedia isn't the encyclopedia of Now.--Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I almost broke into professional badminton for England 5 years ago (true fact). Should I have an article? Spiderone 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Pele has no meaning to me he was a superstar. Everybody knows that. Everybody's heard of Pele. Not many have heard of Dan Pelc. What has Dan Pelc done that's signifacant? Anyway, no offence to Canadians, but Canada's National Team isn't the greatest team in the whole world-Especcially the Under-17's. I suggest you get more infomation-That's a start. Thanks, Pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Speziale[edit]

Robin Speziale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not clearly show notability. Although there are several sources, they are all, to my mind, either trivial mentions or not reliable sources; a few appear to be thinly veiled press releases. bonadea contributions talk 18:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If someone wants to merge this let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges Community Church[edit]

Bridges Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local congregation Jonathunder (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Lepmets[edit]

Sergei Lepmets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. Although Liga I is fully pro, he has not played for Politehnica. No reason was given for contestation. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that's speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Second, he would only become notable if he were to actually play for Timisoara. So, for the time being anyways, this is not relevant. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spa closures in Singapore[edit]

Spa closures in Singapore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant soapboxing WuhWuzDat 17:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following related page has also been listed for deletion:
Patrick Wee Ewe Seng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment Duplicate vote struck out. WuhWuzDat 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptomechanics[edit]

Cryptomechanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism which gives no GBook or GNews hits whatsoever, and other searches turn up Google traps or false hits, primarily on mechanical cryptography. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De rigueur[edit]

De rigueur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, particularly not a French dictionary. Powers T 17:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, as follows:

Working back up from the bottom and looking at the point-by-point on "academics"...

As such, the rough consens to delete appears to be in line with policy.

With respect to the information provided by User:Dr Fil...


Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul R. Hill[edit]

Paul R. Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A punt from Wikipedia:FTN#Paul_R._Hill. People trying to find independent, third-party, reliable sources for this biography have been unsuccessful. This would seem to indicate the guy fails WP:BIO. jps (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Do you have some additional verification to justify that Hill's was a "lifetime spent on the cutting edge of research and development", he was thought to be "pioneering", and that his career and views were the subject of serious, in depth coverage by mainstream sources? I'm asking because, in the links you gave, I only see Hills name mentioned in passing among literally dozens of other, equally obscure employees. Also the article seems to be functioning as somewhat of a coatrack for Hill's views on UFOs, which weren't given much attention at all by mainstream reviewers, and as a result would not warrant any degree of coverage here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Hill's views on UFOs were your "coatrack" or rationale for wholesale deletion of the article, something for which you have never provided a decent reason for, other than it personally rubbed you the wrong way, which is totally irrelevant. As for "mainstream sources", how about all the NASA/NACA publications of Hill's? I will continue to look for others (though I doubt you will ever consider them adequate--the moving goalpost thing). For some of his pioneering research, maybe you should have read the article first before deleting it. From the article, here were some of his major R&D contributions in the field:
==Sample personal research involvement==
  • P-47 aerodynamic design: Early in World War II, personally did aerodynamic prototype design and wind tunnel testing of P-47 Thunderbolt fighter and long-range bomber escort plane.
  • Ram-Jet design: Wrote first published NACA report on supersonic Ram-Jet engine theory. Subsequently set up and supervised ram-jet research and flight programs at NACA’s research facility at Wallops Island.
  • Wind tunnel design: Complete design responsibility for first supersonic wind tunnel in the United States operating at Mach 2 at full supersonic temperature. Design responsibility of NACA’s Flutter Research Tunnel, the first tunnel to use denser freon gas rather than air and in which high heat generated had to be removed by refrigeration.
  • Flying platform research: First kinesthetically-controlled “flying platform” research program, 1950-1953. Eventually led to the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) design. (Hill also applied research to analysis of UFO dynamical performance, such as observed wobble and falling-leaf motion.)
  • Spherical solid-fuel motors: Initiation of research on spherical solid fuel motors.
  • Space station technology: Initiation of space station research in the 1960s in inflatable and other self-erecting space structures, regenerative life-supports systems, closed environmental chambers for life-support systems tests, laboratory for study of direct gyroscopic control.
  • Lunar low-gravity simulation: Invention along with David Thomas of lunar low-gravity simulation for lunar transport-flyer research; directed
Dr Fil (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at each of our articles on those subjects, and I don't see Hill mentioned, which would be odd if he indeed played a notable role in their development. There are hundreds of aerospace engineers who worked on such programs who have equally diverse resumes, however that doesn't qualify them as particularly notable and deserving of their own Wikipedia article. Are there any mainstream publications or authors that have written works specifically devoted to Hill? A biography of his life or a review of his work? Perhaps there was an obituary published in a major newspaper or magazine? I'm just not seeing the sources that would indicate the high degree of notability you feel he possesses. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons for deletion keep changing as the former ones get proven bogus. You were first questioning whether Hill was even a research aerospace engineer for NACA/NASA, and here under reasons for deletion claimed literally no independent, 3rd party references existed. Your latest argument seems to be that Wikipedia is allegedly the world's most comprehensive, accurate, and authoritative source of information. If it isn't currently written up in Wikipedia, it just isn't worth mentioning. Of course, we all know that isn’t true. Like any encyclopedia, it can’t go into great depth on much of the subject matter. Thus you are misleading the readers again with your argument that Hill isn’t notable or he would have been mentioned in the Wiki articles on the research he was involved in. The Wiki article on ramjets doesn't even include a section on development in the U.S. It briefly mentions Naval research but not NACA research at the time, which Hill headed. There is no article on the history of flying platforms. Maybe that explains why Hill isn't mentioned. The space station article doesn't discuss early research, which Hill headed at NACA on a rotating, inflatable space station. The article on rotating wheel space stations is little more than a stub article, again not detailing research. Articles on wind tunnels, supersonic wind tunnels, and hypersonic wind tunnels generally discuss principles and do NOT have comprehensive histories, particularly for later supersonic and hypersonic wind tunnels, which Hill was deeply involved in. You won’t find a single name of one person involved with these listed in these Wiki articles.
Wiki basic guidelines on notability of academics, research scientists & engineers, etc. are that they are considered notable in their field, i.e., widely respected by colleagues, did pioneering research, were influential in their field, etc. It does NOT require that their work or life be written up in detail. The point here in the Wiki guidelines is that many people in research fields who do significant work are largely unknown outside of their fields and not rock stars who may be extensively written up. I am, however, trying to get Hill’s writeup in “Who’s Who in Technology”, but it will be several days before it can be retrieved from library storage.
Here is one recent example of where Hill is noted as being highly respected in his field of aerodynamics, in fact one of the leading experts of his day. (I have previously provided a reference where Edward J. Ruppelt of Project Blue Book referred to Hill as "a very famous aerodynamicist" and "high-ranking civilian scientist" for NACA.) Hill is mentioned twice (pp. 31, 45-46) in Dr. Robert F. Brodsky’s 2006 memoir “On the Cutting Edge”, with Brodsky devoting about half a page to Hill’s contributions in his slim 200 page book. Hill was on a specially-assembled advisory panel of “great men” aerodynamicist advising Sandia Labs physicist like Brodsky in the early 1950s why their atom bomb fin designs were breaking. Besides Hill (“Chief of NACA’s Pilotless Aircraft Division”), the “great men” Brodsky names are Jack Northrop (of course, founder of Northrop Aircraft), George Schairer (Chief of aerodynamics at Boeing), Ira H. Abbott (“a legendary engineer”), Ed Heinemann (Chief engineer Douglas Aircraft), Dr. Alex Charters (“a famous ballistician”), Al Sibilia (Vought aircraft chief of aerodynamics), Dr. Charles Poor (Chief Scientist Army’s Ballisic Research Laboratory), and “several other distinguished engineers”. Of the group, it was Hill and Charters whom Brodsky labels the “heroes” who quickly figured out what was going wrong, though Brodsky says at the time they were ignored. It wasn’t until a year later that the Sandia scientists realized they were right. “Both experts were correct, but they were too far ahead of us technically. This was not surprising, since they were the only ones present with ballistic-type experience.” You’ll notice that of these other “great men”, only three have Wikipedia bios and four do NOT. I myself had only heard of Northrop. That doesn’t some how prove they weren’t “notable” in their fields, only that nobody has written about them on Wikipedia. They were certainly considered very notable in their day, or they wouldn’t have been selected for this high-level advisory panel. Brodsky makes this very clear. (Incidentally, Brodsky also doesn’t have a Wiki bio either, despite being considered another aerospace pioneer, including well-publicized research on a space station “lifeboat”. You also won’t find that mentioned in the Wiki articles on space stations either, so obviously he too must not be “notable.”)
Others of comparable “notability” to Hill have bios on Wikipedia. One example is Charles H. Zimmerman. He is primarily noted as performing the first flying platform research at Langley 1950-1953. The research literally would never have gotten off the ground without Hill. Hill championed the research, as noted in a national newspaper article I have already cited, in fact was in charge of it. They co-authored NACA technical reports, which I have cited here. Hill was at least Zimmerman's coequal in that research. If Zimmerman is "notable" for that alone, so is Hill.
Hill had a better or at least equal resumé and did at least as important or more important work than many listed and bio’ed over on List of aerospace engineers. (Like any similar Wikipedia list, it is hardly exhaustive. Just because someone isn’t listed there doesn’t mean they aren’t somehow noteworthy.) Just one example, check out Ron Ayers. (This is no criticism of Ayers BTW. Nor is he special. I started with “A” and he was the first one with a similar bio to Hill’s.) Like Hill, he was an early R&D aerodynamicist. His main listed "notability" in the Wiki article was for “aerodynamics of the land speed record-holding vehicle, ThrustSSC.” Well, I guess that has some minor notability, but is it really that important in the history of aeronautical engineering, in contrast to say Hill’s ramjet or flying platform/LEM or inflatable space habitat work for Langley Research Labs? Ayers also worked on design of a post-war British nuclear bomber, much like Hill designed the aerodynamics of the P-47 Thunderbolt. In my judgment, the P-47 was the more important historically. After the War, like Hill, Ayers worked in missile and aerodynamic research; like Hill headed up some departments. The total listed source material for this are two short bios on Ayers, one by himself, and an interview with Ayers on the ThrustSSC web page, thus basically self-sourced and NOT independent, disinterested, source material. Besides the lack of what constitutes proper Wiki “reliability” sourcing, what exactly makes Ayers more notable than his many colleagues who he worked with, or other department heads like himself? Yet you are putting the exact same knocks on Hill as suitable justifications to delete the article. In what way is Ron Ayers deserving of “notability” and a bio but not Hill? Why isn’t there a similar push to delete Ayers? I see a double standard at work here, and it is clearly related to the labeling here of Hill as a “crank” and “fringe” for daring to write a book analyzing possible UFO physics and engineering. Dr Fil (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I think as long as it is made clear that these comments on UFOs were made by Hill, there is no reason to delete them. Many things in any of our lives are impossible to verify through a second source, and many biographies on people are necessarily based on their own autobiographical information. E.g., astronomer Clyde Tombaugh reported six UFO sightings, only one of which he officially reported. Are we supposed to never mention what Tombaugh said because there is no independent way to verify the information? Hill, like Tombaugh, did report one of his UFO sightings and has a second source already included in the article, Cpt. Edward J. Ruppelt, who headed the USAF's public UFO investigation in the early 1950s. Ruppelt also mentioned Hill's notability in his day: "While discussing the huge 1952 UFO sightings "flap", Hill’s sighting was briefly described (with some variation from Hill’s) by Project Blue Book head Edward J. Ruppelt in his 1956 book, but with Hill's name not given. Ruppelt referred to Hill as a 'high-ranking civilian scientist' from NACA, and concluded saying that, 'the man from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was a very famous aerodynamicist and of such professional stature that if he said the lights weren't airplanes they weren't.'" Ruppelt, Chapter 12 Hill's 1952 UFO sighting can also be found in the list of official Blue Book unknowns.[20] (See case 598, July 16, 1952; Tombaugh's sighting is also there, Case 248). Anyway, thanks for your vote to keep. I will be checking other "mainstream" sources to see if Hill is mentioned there.Dr Fil (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Followup My above comment apparently overlapped Dr. Fil's adding thelist of research and invention. That's all fine, but where are the sources for these things? EEng (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These were quick searches of Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, also the NASA history website. Hill also has at least one patent, which I haven't listed here. The point is "Paul R. Hill" is quite easy to find in mainstream, independent sources (such as his NACA/NASA publications) and the claims of those pushing deletion that no such sources existed were made up. These searches also turned up references to Hill in a recent memoir by Dr. Robert Brodsky, who refers to him as one of the "great men" of aerodynamics in his day. He is also supposed to be listed in "Who's Who in Technology, 1989", which I have on order from a local university library. I will report what I find when it comes through. (Unfortunately other biographical information in two other books are not available through the library.)Dr Fil (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another search of the Web. Please don’t say again there isn’t any independent, mainstream material on Hill to verify anything in the Hill article or his book. Is this “mainstream” enough for everybody? It was even being questioned whether he ever worked for NACA or NASA.

1990 Obituary, From Google News, search "Paul R. Hill" [21]:

‎ Paul R. Hill search in Google Books[22] (stopped at page 10): (Sorry, had to delete all tinyurl links, since they were considered spam by Wikipedia, so just do your own search and the following will turn up)

Apparently biographical information here:

Research:

Ramjet work:


More on Hill’s work on flying platforms:

Flying platform research mentioned:

3rd Party biographical commentary on Hill’s space station/flying platform research:

Flying platform research and lunar lander:


Dr Fil (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your personal research in digging Hill's name out of a variety of technical publications, Dr. Fil. However, we need a source that specifically states what makes Paul R. Hill more notable than, let's say, "Emmanuel Schnitzer"..."David F. Thomas...."T.L. Kennedy", or any of the dozens and dozens of engineers who are also listed in these publications as working on these projects in contributor or supervisory positions. (Also can you please avoid cutting and pasting large masses of text to the discussion? It makes it difficult for others to follow. A link will do.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not allow tinyurl links, which I wanted to use. The original links often run several hundred characters, typically longer than the summaries. I listed everything in detail to refute the unsupported allegations that there were no independent, "mainstream", 3rd party sources on Hill to be found. Even his existence as a NACA/NASA research engineer was being questioned.
Hill was one of the pioneers of the ramjet, the flying platform (eventually incorporated into the lunar landing module), directed Langley's research into an inflatable space station (an idea that still has legs), designed the streamlining of the P-47 Thunderbolt (at one time the fastest propeller plane in the world), designed the first hypersonic wind tunnels for Langley. Those contributions alone would make him a "notable" in aviation history, at least as "notable" as most of the people listed over on Wikipedia's List of aerospace engineers with their own biographies. If you are like me, I have never heard of at least 80% of these aviation "notables" listed there. Ever hear of Roy Fedden? Anton Flettner? Raoul Haffner? What exactly does "notable" mean anyway? Celebrities are widely known to the public, making them "notable", though not necessarily particularly important, e.g. Miley Cyrus. But many people work in specialties generally not known to the public but well-known and respected in their fields in their day, who do make important contributions. Hill was one of those in aviation engineering R&D.
Hill was also a notable in the subject of Ufology for the book he wrote on the subject, applying his aerospace engineering background to analyzing the principles he believed behind their operation. (So did another aviation pioneer, Hermann Oberth, who, unlike Hill, was very publicly outspoken on the topic.) That is Hill's real "sin", and the real reason why skeptics are trying to delete the article on him, whether they like to admit it or not. They are also currently on a campaign to delete biographies on other UFO-related notables, people widely known in the field and considered to have made important contributions to it, but because the subject is UFOs are deemed worthy of censorship.Dr Fil (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get off your soapbox, please, and assume good faith. If he's notable for being a UFO-related crank, or for his other non-cranky academic work, his article should be kept, and if he isn't it shouldn't. We shouldn't be defending or attacking the subject here, only reporting on how it is received in the mainstream, and we shouldn't be basing our decision on whether to keep or delete the article on whether we want to defend or attack the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Hill himself does not appear to pass WP:PROF or to have any notability beyond that of his book." "As above, Hill has no notability independent of his book." Please see my more detailed reply to LuckyLouie above. I would like to understand why Charles Zimmerman is considered notable enough for a separate Wiki bio including for his research on the flying platform at Langley from 1950-1953, when Hill was his boss, made the research possible because of his own interest in it, contributed as least equally to it, and coauthored with Zimmerman and separately authored NACA technical reports on the research, three of which I have cited. Zimmerman's entire short bio is based almost entirely on NACA technical reports from the 1930s. Why don't Hill's approximately 30 NACA/NASA technical reports from 1940-1970 also count in a career more diverse than Zimmerman's? Similarly, I would like to know why British aerospace engineer Ron Ayers, with a similar, perhaps less impressive resume' than Hill's, is deserving of his own Wiki bio and meets notability requirements, but not Hill. Please also explain why Dr. Robert Brodsky, himself considered an aerospace pioneer, in his memoirs refers to Hill as one of the "great men" of aerodynamics in his day on a special advisory panel Brodsky assembled to figure out why their A-bomb designs were screwing up at Sandia Labs. I would think somebody like Brodsky, who actually knew Hill and obviously thought very highly of him from his book comments, felt him highly "notable," but people here who know nothing about Hill claim he is not. My point is that the "notability" standard here seems entirely arbitrary.
"...a properly neutral article on its subject is likely to be very difficult (therefore delete)." This is now getting ridiculous. Hill's career at NACA/NASA can and has been objectively verified right here. This is nothing but a matter of historical record. Why should there be any problems with neutrality on that? The ONLY thing that seems to be controversial are the views in his UFO book. Since when is it a proper Wiki rationale to delete matter simply because some of it is controversial? Clyde Tombaugh, Hermann Oberth, Michio Kaku, Gordon Cooper, Edgar Mitchell, and Peter Sturrock have also express controversial views on UFOs, but their career facts aren't in doubt. Should we delete their bios too because of their controversial UFO opinions?Dr Fil (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 iff proper sources are found and used. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apache chemistry[edit]

Apache chemistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed. Still no third-party, reliable coverage. No indication of importance due to non-existent coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Joe Fisher[edit]

Ira Joe Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no external sources or claims to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:49, 3 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) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Huntley[edit]

Brandon Huntley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesnot meet Wikipedia requirement of Notability as per (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 04:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E applies to articles about people. I think the petition of asylum is notable, but not the person himself.--Banana (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. It suppose that, treated as an event, this meets the requirements of WP:GNG; on the other hand, I don't think it meets the level of lasting effects or in-depth coverage required by WP:EVENT. So my vote changes to "weak delete". - htonl (talk) 22:35, 8 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) 16:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus here is that the subject of the article is not notable, or if he is, it is only for one event. There's no clear and acceptable target for either a merge or redirect at the moment: see Rms125a@hotmail.com's question near the end of the discussion. If a suitable target arises, I would be happy to userfy content to be made use of in another article. This would not be inconsistent with the consensus here, which is that a separate article on the subject is not appropriate. Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslaw Bilaniuk[edit]

Jaroslaw Bilaniuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A concentration camp guard - one of thousands - of no particular note - no evidence of special note or even of any involvement in any crimes at all. Unless all concentration camp guards are notable then he isn't. Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be merged until list is created. The ball is in your court. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presto! Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, pretty impressive. But then Bilaniuk remains as a redirect to your list, no? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Canceling my lvote again, since Bilaniuk's denaturalization status is unknown. I'll vote for a redirect for Pilij though. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I think you mean "Palij". Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. Lemme Pilij ... and lute and Bern. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously though, Palij's article is also at AfD and unless there is a shift in the vote trend will also be deleted or exist only as a redirect, so a redirect of Bilaniuk to Palij is highly unlikely. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Logan Talk Contributions 06:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sangokujin[edit]

Sangokujin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an obscure word in Japanese. Articles about non-Japanese people living in Japan are certainly worthy, in which this minor word could be mentioned. Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Saunders (author)[edit]

Grace Saunders (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. A search of Google News archives, including all dates, using "Grace Saunders", turned up no hits that I could see for an author under this name. Non-notable author and journalist. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyland Language Centre[edit]

Hyland Language Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-promotional article about a language learning school that does not meet the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American University of Mayonic Science and Technology[edit]

American University of Mayonic Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications that this for-profit educational institution has been the subject of significant independent coverage, as required by the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accredited higher education institutions are presumed notable. This school is not accredited. Therefore it needs to pass WP:ORG/WP:CORP. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Schools (accredited or not) must pass WP:ORG. Most accredited colleges and universities do, but the criteria must be verifiably met. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Hwang-Wu[edit]

Yu Hwang-Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications that this article meets the criteria for inclusion. Cited references are all self-published press releases or blogs on CNN's "I-Report" service, a self-publishing initiative. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 denaturalized Americans. Consensus is that the subject is only notable for one event. A merge has been suggested by a number of participants, but there is no clear proposal (what will be merged to where) that has received any support. The arguments for deletion are policy-based and enjoy consensus support. However, the redirect suggested is a viable option that is not inconsistent with the reasons to delete the article. No delete !voters have raised any objection to it, and in this case, redirection achieves the objectives of the delete !voters: removal of a separate article. So redirect it will be. No-one has raised any reason why deletion of the page's history behind the new redirect would be appropriate, but I am happy to consider any reasons to do so on my talk page. Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jakiw Palij[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jakiw Palij (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't appear to assert any kind of note, an individual losing his citizenship is not in itself noteworthy - or any kind of test case or ground breaking legal descision - he appears not to have played any notable part in any crimes as such just failed to declare the detail. I prodded the article but it seems to have been at AFD previously and deleted and was recreated - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakiw_Palij - article was the subject of a request at the BLPN also here. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is not possible per WP:COATRACK.--Galassi (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It seems that the Palij-Bilaniuk case is indeed a notable case, and a single article oughts to cover it. What coatrack are you talking about? (Besides, WP:COATRACK is just an essay: a very sensible one in some places, a very wrong one in others). --Cyclopiatalk 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Jaroslaw Bilaniuk page also has a pending AFD, created January 10, 2011 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011), so merge is not really appropriate, as the page may be deleted completely. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting anecdote, but what's its relevance here? --Cyclopiatalk 19:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance is that there were a lot of people that made it from the Polish/Ukrainian area after the war to the West. Most were driven or fled westwards as the Soviet forces drove the Germans out of the area, some were nasty little shits and others were caught up in events. If there is evidence they should be deported back to where they can face trial. As with Demjanjuk there should be no Amnesty, let the law take its course. If the authorities aren't prepared to prosecute then all there is is rumours. That this person didn't declare his full involvement with the Nazis is not particularly unusual in the aftermath of WW2. John lilburne (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Complete deletion is not appropriate anyway in light of inclusion in the List of denaturalized Americans which would mean that if article is not kept name should be a redirect to the list, created today. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm definitely not seeing a consensus for deletion here. The prospect of a merge was proffered by the nominator and those supporting keeping might be okay with that, but there isn't consensus for that either. Decisions about what to do next can be made via the normal editing process. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guru.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Guru.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a very minor company that has had insufficient press coverage to write a proper article, and therefore fails WP:CORP. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 2 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, Davewild (talk) 19:01, 9 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, Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Klonaridis[edit]

Victor Klonaridis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTY as the player has not competed in a professional league match (which would be the Superleague Greece in this case). Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up (Justin Bieber song)[edit]

Up (Justin Bieber song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no expansion on why this song is significant enough to warrant its own article Transcendence (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not transwikied as it has sourcing issues and may contain WP:SYNTH. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portagee[edit]

Portagee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Portagee" is a slang word for "Portuguese" used in some parts of the USA. Not a suitable topic for a WP article due to WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thodoris Moschonas). The new version of the article did nothing to address the issues leding to deletion last time, and there is no point in wasting everybody's time on another discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Moschonas[edit]

Theodoros Moschonas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moving to AfD as an IP recently deleted the Prod. I agree with Soccer-holic's prod which states: "Fails WP:NFOOTY as the player has not competed in a professional league match (which would be the Superleague Greece in this case". --GnoworTC 08:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Expatriates in the United Arab Emirates. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 06:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danes in the United Arab Emirates[edit]

Danes in the United Arab Emirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

if all the article really states there are 2000 Danes in UAE (which is a tiny fraction of the total 5 million ie 0.04%, there really isn't much going and I don't see this article meeting WP:GNG. any useful information can be contained in Denmark – United Arab Emirates relations. I've moved the population figure into there now. LibStar (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as I said any relevant info can be placed in Denmark – United Arab Emirates relations. A tiny expat population is hardly going to generate much coverage unless they do something very significant or controversial. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the article creators should be admonished to concentrate on improving the existing stubs they have created about dozens of minor groups in the UAE and South Asia, rather than striving to create even more of these uninformative articles just to fill up templates. cab (call) 02:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree with above statement. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Pakistan relations[edit]

Chile–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a country pairing with not even a medium level relationship. many have argued that trade is a good indicator, well trade is less than USD70 million which is about 0.03% of Chile's GDP. in other words Chile is not reliant on Pakistan for trade. whilst the cited article goes on about boosting trade, it says nothing about any meaningful trade at the moment, nor do the countries have any trade agreements. article cites Pakistanis in Chile number 200 which is pitifully small in a country of 17 million. the discussion of a Pakistani arrested or place names after each other is stretching it for bilateral relations. those wanting to keep should provide evidence of actual indepth coverage and not just say "as per economic relations." LibStar (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chile-Pakistan relationship are new and still developing. Chilean mining companies have already invested billions of US$ in Pakistan mining projects, once these projects are completed, it will generate revenue in 10s of billions of US$,. The limited people traffic between the countries is because of the very vast geographical distance between the two countries. Though Pakistanis make a very tiny portion of the Chilean population, you also need to see that there are just 4,000 Muslims living in Chile. The figure of 200 Pakistanis apply for 2005, latest figures for 2011 can run as high as possibly 250. Pakistani community also owns a mosque in Iquique. Now given the small size of Muslims in Chile, these numbers make an important representation of Muslims in Chile. Chile also recently recognised the Palestinian state, see http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/09/2742457/chile-recognizes-palestinian-state Now given that the Palestinian issue has strong prominence in OIC, of which Pakistan is a lead member, see Pakistan-OIC relations, these are all significant developing relationship.

The Pakistan-Chile developing relationship are most evident from the fact that Chile is considering to open an embassy in Islamabad, see my main article for reference, whereas Pakistan embassy in Chile was only opened in 2008.

Also I want to know, why Pakistan-Chile article is being considered for deletion, but the Chile–Israel relations enjoys better privilage, even though the Chile–Israel relations cites no trade links, no reference for military links, no Chilean investment in Israel, and zero Israelis living in Chile.

Whats better, 200 Pakistanis living in Chile, or 0 Israelis living in Chile? Just because 0 Israelis live in Chile, would you delete the Chile-Israel relations page?

LibStar, as I can see, you are also one of the author of the Chile-Israel relations page. How do you justify page written by you?

(Jalal0 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Response to above

LibStar (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response According to the FT article, see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1df0dad6-0145-11df-8c54-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1AdZfyurh, the deal between Pakistan and Chile’s Antofagasta and Canada’s Barrick Gold was worth US$3 billion. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

[rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/chilean-senator-calls-local-jews-israeli-agents/ this article] says there are 15,000 Jews in Chile, that's substantially more than Pakistanis in Chile. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Jews are not Israelis, nor are all Israelis Jews. Anyway the article you cited is a blog page, and therefore considered an unreliable piece of information. The OIC discussion is relevant, because non-OIC countries use pro-Islamic political policies (in this case recognition of Palestine) to gain wider and friendly diplomatic and trade deals with Muslim (OIC) countries. And we all know that Pakistan is a key OIC member. (Jalal0 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

if you do a search here mfa.gov.il/MFA/Treaties/Amanot.htm you will see Israel has 9 agreements with Chile including a trade agreement. How many does Pakistan have with Chile? LibStar (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that's a strawman argument. there are particular reasons why US has notable relations with Cuba, North Korea, Iran because of long standing hostile political tensions and sanctions. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
migration is another indicator of relations. there are very little Pakistanis in Chile compared to the total population of 17 million. that is a fact. it's also stretching it to say it's significant because they are a higher percentage of the small Muslim population in Chile. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yisrael Meir HaKohen#Affiliates and branches. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesivta of Roslyn[edit]

Mesivta of Roslyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While schools have a certain amount of "inherent notability" in Wikipedia, this is a defunct school that only existed for 10 years. It had no (as per a quick search) news coverage or notable alumni. Joe407 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted this in my nomination. It is a defunct highschool that was a branch of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yisrael Meir HaKohen. I'm starting to like IZAK's suggestion. Joe407 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe, that's why I already prepared the groundwork here. Quite often there are valid AfD's but they would result in the loss of some key information and that is why I often favor the "Merge and Redirect" solution that in effect facilitates the AfD but by the same token preserves a key piece of information or two that can be gleaned from a below par article and should and can be preserved in another directly related article. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 9 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,  Sandstein  06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between "it does not exist" and "it no longer exists". The latter certainly can be notable for Wikipedia purposes. Mandsford 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rice King[edit]

Rice King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but merge. Normally I would just redirect it and advise that content can be pulled form the page history for a merge, but the intended target is itself a redirect to Breast implant, so it seems that article, this one, and possibly Breast ironing should all be merged into an omnibus article on the subject at Breast augmentation. I would add that the nominator ought to know better than to make such a useless, unhelpful nomination statement that does not cite any policy, or anything at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand breast slap[edit]

Thailand breast slap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

...no. Just, no. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources below have changed my mind to Weak Keep. If one more source can be found that has more than a paragraph on the subject, i'll change to full Keep. SilverserenC 20:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better sources found now. Changed to full Keep. SilverserenC 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2001 source from google books seems to confirm identity of inventor (not sure if source discusses the procedure from only a snip):, "One Thai breast therapist, Khemika na Songkhla, believes that breasts, being the symbol of feminity, should be big: "Smart women should consider breast enhancement. Women are like cars. After years of use. the car needs some repair".[24]--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inane analogy fail on the part of that therapist. :rollseyes: - Alison ❤ 19:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources (will edit to add to this comment if more found) [25] (possible trans. from a thai paper - uses term "breast pat"); *freep link (blacklisted forum): www.free[removethis]republic.com/focus/f-news/841844/posts* (purported 2003 article in Bangkok times, refers to "breast massaging" for same technique); [26] ("Slap on back improves bust"- confirmed June 6, 2001 article in Thai paper "The Nation"); [27] (forum copying purported 2003 article in The Independent) [28] 2007 german article in de:Der_Freitag about process and meeting Khemika; [29] (I am pretty sure bantobnom.com is the main site for Khemika, it has screen shots of tons of thai press stories about the procedure)... --Milowent • talkblp-r 19:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bouncing breasts on the "official" website made me laugh pretty hard. SilverserenC 20:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure its official, because there's an english version too and it discusses cost, etc. I have also found youtube clips of the woman appearing on Thai news shows[30][31] (demonstration on a mannequin included). I know the article and topic is somewhat absurd, but this procedure appears to have received significant coverage in thai press over the last 10 years.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your vote is that this should be merged to breast augmentation and that breast augmentation should be turned into its own page? SilverserenC 01:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Sorry if that wasn't clear.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW Keep. Stephen 01:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stray animals in Indian airports[edit]

Stray animals in Indian airports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined an inappropriate speedy on this one, and bringing to a wider audience to determine whether this phenomenon is worthy of an article. Stephen 05:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McKenna Gibson Band[edit]

McKenna Gibson Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced Vanispamcruftisement article about a non-notable musical group. Fails WP:CREATIVE Dolovis (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northvegr Foundation[edit]

Northvegr Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article serves solely as an advertisement for a non-notable site hosting widely available public domain material :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Smith (ice hockey)[edit]

Craig Smith (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod on the basis of meeting WP:NHOCKEY #4. The USHL is not a major junior league in comparison to those in Canada. Consensus in the past indicates the NCAA is the highest amateur competition in the United States, and therefore, NHOCKEY refers to the CHL in Canada, NCAA in the US. Grsz 11 04:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to point out that your so-called recent discussion of the issue failed to reach a consensus. I suggest that you wait to see what "most" others might, or might not, agree with. Dolovis (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal was to include the USHL. That's what wasn't accepted. Therefore, USHL is not included under #4. No reason to act that way, as I was for including USHL in the first place, others were not, and now this AfD is based on that consensus. Grsz 11 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he was proposing to add it and did not have consensus, which would mean there was consensus that it did not count. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "source" that you say shows that the USHL is a 'major' junior league is simply a listing of rated prospects, and is published by the USHL. It is hardly independent or convincing. Secondly, of the other three sources, the first two are trivial routine coverage, and the third is borderline. I don't see enough to pass WP:GNG. Ravendrop (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The USHL's own website, the local county weekly and Some Website count as "reliable, independent sources?"  Ravenswing  23:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KCL Radio[edit]

KCL Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student radio club. No broadcast license, no transmitter, not even a closed circuit feed or an online broadcast. Currently producing podcasts only. Sources are largely connected to the subject. Hairhorn (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blueverse[edit]

Blueverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A well referenced article (hence a speedy decline) that doesn't suggest great notability for a social network site for people with disabilities. Stephen 02:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Keep *I started this article because it is a notable topic for people with disabilities. As I am aware that some of you may not have the same frame of reference as people with disabilities. That is why I had made the community aware of the creation of the article so that we can get a neutral point of view on this social network and provide an encyclopedic outlook on the organization behind it, in order for people to learn more about what they are actually supporting. There has been a lot of changes to what I had originally posted, So I think this is a great thing. I invite anyone to help improve the article and make it more neutral and encyclopedic. I have added a few more reliable third party sources such as the NY Post, and the Villanovan that talk directly about the Organization and their Network which I believe is a good start and will continue to add more as I get more time to research. As you are all aware WP:TIND There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to the standards eventually. Also I commend whoever, wrote the Social Networking for people with Disabilities section, I think this is a great place to have that sort of information since there will most likely never be an independent article accepted and approved about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaminglegends (talk • contribs) 05:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus that the improved article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Pires[edit]

Paulo Pires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any more information regarding Mr. Pires. He doesn't appear to notable other then to have appeared in Portuguese shows reported on IMDB. Phearson (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2010 (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) 23:59, 1 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, Logan Talk Contributions 02:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the improvement Schmidt has done I notice the plethoraamount of redlinks that splatterare on the page. Most of these look like items that are not likely to have articles created for them. Article is now largely a info dump of what he's been in. If we strip away that all we're left with is a flowery description of what he's been in. Still not demonstrating notability for EN wikipedia. I'm plenty sure he's notable in the Portuguese version. I stand by my Delete assertion on this AFD. Hasteur (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plethora? Splatter? Dump? Unhelpful hyperbole. The improvement work is ongoing to address the nominator's concerns. Its not "done" yet... and more has been done since your comment and more remains to be done... by editors actually willing to work toward the article's improvement. That certain Portugese films and television series are current redlinks, is fine with en.Wikipedia, as redlinks are intended to encourage new content.. and though they can always be removed if no one wishes to create aricles of these notable Portugese films and programs, a film or program with a reseaonable presumption of notability, even if only in Portugal, is just fine with en.Wikipedia in others seeing that this individual's prolific work for some 20 years easily meets WP:ENT... even if no one were to make any effort to build these articles in helping to curb the unfortunate systemic bias inherent in en.Wikiedia. JJust the tip of the iceberg is found in this individual being in 251 episodes of the notable Deixa-me Amar (redlink or no), in 237 episodes of the notable Olhos nos Olhos (redlink or no), and 348 episodes of Meu Amor (Oops. We have an article for this one!) His winning a Portugese Golden Globe is simply icing on the cake. Finding sources for a Portugese notable might take some effort, but the need for a little work is no reason to delete an article that can be improved with regular editing. Stick with your delete if you wish, but I'm sure a closer will notice the ongoing improvements... and explain in his close that per both guideline AND policy, notability in Portugal is fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NOTDIR. From WP:REDLINK In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name. From what I can tell, most of the shows the actor appeared in are Telenovelas which means they're only on for about a year maximum (except in the case where it gets expanded to soap opera qualities). The Variety reference is 2 passing mentions and not substantial to the article. Please read Wikipedia:References#Non-English_sources and see that he still is lacking substantial sources in the Engligh Project space. His notability is beyond question in the Portugese, Spanish, and possibly German projects (as his wife is from Austria if I read the translation page correctly). In response to your claim of systemic bias in EN wikipedia I would point you at Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#Biographies. This CSD has been relisted twice and been on the Portugal, Actors, and People related discussion lists (in some cases since the 26th of December). How much longer should we hold for a group of qualified users to step forward and agree that this article's Foreign Language references do qualify the subject for notability on EN wikipedia. I note that the spanish and portugese versions of the article appear to contain just the descriptive highlights portion of the article and not the info dump that could easily be handled by an external link to the actor's IMDB profile page. Hasteur (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also invite you to strike your assumption of bad faith on my part. I will admit that I chose some of those words to put a specific view on the page. Hasteur (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Last Train to Paris. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 06:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angels (Diddy-Dirty Money song)[edit]

Angels (Diddy-Dirty Money song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You'll see from the article history that I've tried hard to expand this article but its been near impossible. The only thing which establishes the song as notable, is its two chart positions which can only be verified through billboard.biz subscription. It hardly seems worth having an independent article per WP:NSONGS. Suggest 'redirect to Last Train to Paris. Note that the article is unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The actual page has no reliable sources so the delete votes have the ascendency. The creation of a disambiguation page for notable toys that have a page is an editorial decision that has no bearing on this discussion Spartaz Humbug! 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knock Out (Transformers)[edit]

Knock Out (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character with no reliable sources claiming any notability, not to mention a non-free image violation. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what notability do any of these several different characters have? A toy, by itself, does not make for notability. And multiple non-notable characters do not add up to enough notability for their to be a page here. --Khajidha (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fangry[edit]

Fangry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character with no reliable or non-primary sources claiming any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of Transformers: The Headmasters characters. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 06:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chromedome[edit]

Chromedome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character with no reliable sources claiming any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We can't merge content that is; at a generous best, very poorly sourced. Courcelles 02:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorm (Transformers)[edit]

Brainstorm (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character with no reliable sources claiming any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We can't merge content that is; at a generous best, very poorly sourced. Courcelles 02:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apeface[edit]

Apeface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character with no reliable sources claiming any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Gutiérrez-Ferrol[edit]

Sergio Gutiérrez-Ferrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP Notability for tennis players - no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no Challenger or junior grand slam titles, not a world top three ranked junior player Mayumashu (talk) 00:09, 3 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) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a weak consensus among editors that weighed in for keep, but the secondary sourcing is there, and there are clearly additional places for research of further WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ryan (reporter)[edit]

Jim Ryan (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sources or claims to notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned shows are not claims to notability in an of themselves, unless you count WP:LOCAL. The Current Affair gives him a single passing mention, nigh an afterthought.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "local" I suppose you mean the over 19 million population New York metropolitan area in which those television stations in which the topic was an anchor on serve, then I suppose you are correct. WP:LOCAL is not a notability guideline but an essay that explains how to write article of topics that are of local interest.--Oakshade (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not yet have to be in the article. WP:NOTABILITY states very clearly:
"Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation."
Clearly sources exist that establish notability as indicated above. --Oakshade (talk) 19:57, 10 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) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anchoring a popular nation television program and two newscasts in the largest media market in North America is an assertion of notability. If this was speedy deleted, it would've easily been overturned in DRV.--Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So this person satisfies all the criteria of WP:ANCHORMAN ? Oh, wait...it doesn't exist, so we go by what does exist, which is WP:CREATIVE, where he fails 1 thru 5. Being a news anchor of a city (not national) news show is not an automatic notability qualifier. Neither is the brief stint at a Current Affair. I'm sorry if you were a fan or something, but the guy just doesn't make the cut. Tarc (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice straw man. I was responding to your rationale that there was no assertion of notability and that this could've been a speedy deletion. You didn't say anything about passing any of our notability guidelines, fictional or otherwise. Now that you've changed your argument for deletion, this easily passes WP:N and its WP:GNG for receiving significant coverage from reliable sources.--Oakshade (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory#M. T. Geoffrey Yeh Student Center . Clear consensus after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M. T. Geoffrey Yeh Student Center[edit]

M. T. Geoffrey Yeh Student Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. It's a building on a university campus. The stuff about LEED compliance was so non-notable I almost fell asleep. —Tom Morris 03:07, 3 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) 00:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Lande[edit]

Stacy Lande (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Click on the Google links: not a notable artist. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Three references have been added citing two books with content available on google books, and another reference citing the official website for a Los Angeles gallery La Luz de Jesus. More references are available, including Juxtapoz magazine which has profiled Stacy Lande. TBliss (talk) 03:30, 4 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) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Flock[edit]

Alexander Flock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:Notability for tennis players - no ATP Tour main draw matches played in, no ATP Challenger titles, not a world top three junior, and not junior grand slam event titles Mayumashu (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems notable.Hillcountries (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under which of the criterion? Mayumashu (talk) 01:48, 6 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) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dentons Green[edit]

Dentons Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dentons Green lies within the boundary of Windle, St Helens and is little other than a suburb within a town, of no notability. Article was established in 2007, and has not established notability in that time, content can be moved to Windle article or main St Helens article (however little of the content is of any value. Koncorde (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It isn't a parish, a ward or a separate village, but St Helens Council recognises it as a neighbourhood[47] and the Royal Mail includes it in some addresses for the area. I oppose deletion, as merging (or redirecting) should be considered instead. Peter E. James (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a neighbourhood of Windle Ward, Parish and historical Township, and a Suburb of St Helens, Merseyside. Its claim to notability are non-existent. Most of the content claimed as "Dentons Green" is historically associated with Windle. Redirecting to the Windle, St Helens article would suffice in terms of at least centralising the subject within an area with established notability. Koncorde (talk) 21:33, 4 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) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content has now been transferred, well the parts that are of any merit anyway. So deletion or redirect. Whichever is cleanest and/or seen as merited.Koncorde (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any content worth merging can be pulled form the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Kok Liang[edit]

Tan Kok Liang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've just declined the speedy A7 on this, as there's enough there for CSD. However, not sure about GNG however, hence bringing here. GedUK  11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a nominator

Comment I think "well referenced" doesn't make an article notable. Google Books 47, scholar 10 (Please note that there is also a reputable doctor named Tan Kok Liang). He is notable for a crime only. Technically, he shouldn't have an article himself, but need to be mentioned in his crime article. But, the problem is how notable is his crime? Is there any policy change? Or international reactions? Is that shaken the market? Clearly not. More simply it doesn't even have any lasting effects. He was sentenced only 9 months in jail. If that be minimum requisite, there are thousands more criminals in Singapore who had committed more serious crimes. (the entire world?) Soewinhan (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the market was shaken according to the Asian bulletin, which clearly states "The Pan-Electric fiasco caused the collapse of the stock exchange of Malaysia and Singapore" which seems to suggest a certain notability. [48] Francis Bond (talk) 07:31, 10 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) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat: this was a big case in Singapore, as is clear when you read some of the citations. For example:
  • Here is a snippet about him in the Asian bulletin, which states "the Pan-Electric fiasco caused the collapse of the stock exchange of Malaysia and Singapore" [49]
  • Here is something about him in Asia 1987 year book. [50]

Francis Bond (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see you are saying Collapse of Pan-Electric Industries which is a notable case, involving many business entrepreneurs like Tan Koon Swan, Peter Tham, Tan Kok Liang and many others. WP:1E suggests that the rule is to cover the event. Not the pompous biographies of everyone involved in that case.

I suggest we should copy some materials to Pan-Electric Industries and delete or redirect this article like we did in Suu Kyi trespasser incidents. I'll take all Pan-Electric related cases of these three persons and put them in the company's article. Soewinhan (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with that, so long as we keep all the relevant information. Consider me persuaded. Francis Bond (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soewinhan's plan sounds like an excellent solution. --Stormbay (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janusz Majer[edit]

Janusz Majer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable mountain-climber. There are some news stories mentioning him, but they don't seem to go into depth. Having a Polish speaker look over this would be helpful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:14, 3 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) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay Football League[edit]

Uruguay Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be at best an amateur American Football league, and I can't any references to establish notability. Angryapathy (talk) 18:40, 3 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) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fyi, archives of that broken link can be found at archive.org here [51]--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  06:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Rose and a Prayer[edit]

A Rose and a Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in reliable sources. None of the cited sources meet RS criteria for notability, and Google News/Books doesn't bring anything up. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you do, please keep in mind WP:ORG, and remember that coverage must be significant in order to establish notability. It would be great if you could find some significant coverage. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22A+Rose+and+a+Prayer%22. - Haymaker (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I started with, but unless one of the paywalled articles is a hidden gold mine of significant coverage or otherwise indicates that the group is important, I don't think that cuts it. "Someone from ARAAP commented on this event" doesn't satisfy WP:ORG. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do, here are a few of the free google abstracts;
"The removal of some of the bad provisions from the bill is credited to a newly created grassroots pro-life group called A Rose and a Prayer. ..." - January 19, 2006
"One opposition group, A Rose and a Prayer, which fought SB 80, will likely see its elation dissipate. Rep. Deborah Hudson, the bill's sponsor, ..." - January 21, 2006
"A Rose and a Prayer organizers are not deterred. "Maybe if there's an organization on the other side, we can come together and debate this issue," said ... " - March 5, 2007
"Members of Stem Cell Go are expected to testify on both bills, as are supporters of A Rose and a Prayer, which opposes embryonic stem cell research and ..." - March 21, 2007
"Representatives of A Rose and a Prayer have argued that they are not necessarily against the in vitro process per se (all the while creating legislation ..." - March 29, 2007
"But Thursday's debate featured no dramatic touches, such as the roses that the group A Rose and a Prayer delivered to House members last year in their quest ..." - March 30, 2007
"DOVER -- It worked before and members of A Rose and a Prayer are hoping that 2500 roses will help turn away a bill that would regulate embryonic stem cell ..." - April 25, 2007
I'll look into finding a way to gain free access to these articles for all readers. - Haymaker (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, like I said, passing mentions that don't satisfy WP:ORG. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are explicit statements in RS's of that organization's ability to influence legislation and state-wide politics over several years. If you really think that explicit statements in reliable sources aren't enough bring it to RS/N. - Haymaker (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my time is a bit freed up now that I'm done researching naval battles, so I went hunting for the sources you referred to.
1. LifeNews. Good luck getting that classified as a reliable source.
2. Couldn't find.
3. Found here. Mentions the roses as part of what defeated the bill, but it's by no means clear that the bill's defeat is to be attributed to ARAAP, and very little of the article is about ARAAP.
4. Couldn't find.
5. Found here. Opinion piece that mentions the group in passing.
6. Same link. Mentions the group only in passing, doesn't indicate that they ever achieved anything.
7. Found here. In spite of the opener, it's really just a short piece on the bill.
So much for "ability to influence legislation and state-wide politics over several years." They don't, in fact, appear to have influenced much of anything at all. You'll want to try a little harder there, partner. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid using sarcasm, it will build character. My fault on the first go, that was from lifesite, all of the rest are from the free abstracts of newspaper articles (mostly the News Journal) that google news offered, you can find them all there. While I was poking around I found this from Celia Cohen, a Delaware political writer who has written at least 1 book devoted entirely to Delaware politics and who is used as a source in many articles on the politics of Delaware writing about them. While the RSs covering them are finite there are more and we passed the mark as far as WP:ORG is concerned a while ago. - Haymaker (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another trivial mention that doesn't tell us anything about the group except that they are Opposed To All This Dammit. That's helpful.
"we passed the mark as far as WP:ORG is concerned a while ago" - don't you mean that we passed the mark as far as you are concerned? Because it's hard to establish notability for these little nothing provincial organizations even if there is significant local coverage, and you haven't even demonstrated that anyone in their own state cares about them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roscelese, I'd also like to ask you to please try to maintain a more civil and/or neutral tone in this discussion. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I suppose. Frequenting AfD does tend to make one tired of seeing "it exists, therefore it needs to have an article" and other ridiculous notability claims, though. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are pretty much the same citations I found. My analysis was that either they were not "independent reliable sources" (being things like News-Journal op-ed pieces or POV websites) or else they did not provide "significant coverage" (being a passing mention of the group rather than an article giving significant information about the group). Significant coverage by independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability at Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 9 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) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you found any sources that satisfy the aforementioned notability requirements? The POV of the article is a problem too, but I wouldn't bother unless notability can be attested. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of coverage in The News-Journal. Just because it is not online does not discount its coverage. I'll cite some specific issues, anyone with access to a decent library should be able to obtain microfilm of the articles in question. A few references by the Catholic News Agency- although their editorial content might be pro-life, I think their credentials as a legitimate news service is adequate.Wkharrisjr (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course its not being online doesn't discount its coverage - offline sources can be very useful. It's just helpful to have it online so other editors can check what kind of coverage it is. References like the ones Haymaker provided above don't satisfy notability requirements, because they are passing mentions - if the News-Journal has done a profile on the group or something, that's great. What I found in their web archives doesn't appear to qualify, but who knows, they may not archive everything. (Though, "a decent library"? Maybe a decent library in Delaware, but not every library archives non-local newspapers short of the Times and that sort of thing - I have access to a number of "decent libraries," which don't archive the News-Journal.) On your work on the article: the Catholic.org seems like a trivial mention to me (all we know is that they're opposed to the bill and founded by Jenkins, then the article moves on to other stuff). The Catholic News Agency story is what I would consider on the low end of significant coverage - can you find more like that, or better? (The CWFA and NewsZap links are broken - I know you didn't add them, but if you're going to keep working on the article, it's worth knowing.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Celia Cohen wrote a great article on them. She seems to be a pretty big deal in her state and it used as a source on many other article. - Haymaker (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned Celia Cohen, but you didn't link the article. (Or if the one you linked above is Cohen's "article on them," it's not so much on them.) Is Cohen's article on them online? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My bad this was the one. - Haymaker (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might have the wrong link again - that one also only mentions ARAAP in passing, and the "it worked" seems to be a comment on the "moral argument" as a whole (including the diocese's work) rather than on the rose schtick. Those are the only two articles mentioning ARAAP on the Grapevine site - could it be hosted elsewhere? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I read it. - Haymaker (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, do you actually have any significant stories on this group, or not? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the newspaper articles and the newswire services, I think the Cohen article represents significant coverage. - Haymaker (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then please reread WP:ORG so that you might understand "significant." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:ORG, I am familiar with what is meant as "significant", I believe this qualifies. - Haymaker (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus leaning towards a weak keep, due to recognition within her field and the industry, and coverage in some secondary sourcing. -- Cirt (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Capelli[edit]

Jesse Capelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria. NW (Talk) 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You´re a funny guy, can you see the international wikis? Keep is the only possible result. She is really famous in the business. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:22, 8 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) 23:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Cassidy[edit]

Angel Cassidy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-known in the industry. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a valid criteria to retain an article in the Wikipedia. Please provide a valid rationale so your !vote will not be discounted entirely. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 10 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) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allysin Chaynes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Allysin Chaynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:21, 3 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) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Dark[edit]

Anita Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet any of the four WP:PORNBIO criteria, as she has not won a well-known award; has not received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years; has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; and has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. NW (Talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known in the industry. Just look at the international wikis. --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:24, 8 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) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Taxi (iPhone Application)[edit]

Crazy Taxi (iPhone Application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure this is notable enough to merit an article. There isn't really policy for the notability of games (There is a draft for one), so I thought I'd ask here. Tim1357 talk 23:51, 3 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) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Shakespeare[edit]

Terry Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several issues here. This guy's career is quite impressive, but the majority of it is unverifiable, and after 40 Google searches I still can't find any evidence of significant coverage. Only source at present is IMDb, which isn't enough to base a BLP on. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:56, 3 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) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Affirmative action. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 06:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mismatching[edit]

Mismatching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete or merge to affirmative action. No evidence this single study created a notable theory. Rd232 talk 12:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge to Affirmative action. This information should be presented there in context. By itself it is given undue weight as one side of a controversy. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:14, 2 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) 23:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Talatoff[edit]

Kamran Talatoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. nothing in gnews. 8 hits in gscholar and gbooks merely confirms he translated some books. [59]. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this spelling :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Msrasnw (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Question: Should the page be moved now or after the Afd (If we don't lose the article)? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:37, 3 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) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

This is a horribly-written article for a site that seems notable only around here only because of the vileness of their attacks. There has never been an article about ED in any major news source annd no one out side of a few internet communities who have been attacked by them knlow who they are. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete for the lulz. SixthAtom (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "frequently mentioned in news stories". Orthodoxbush (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few Google News mentions (63); perhaps I was wrong to describe that as "frequently mentioned". In retrospect, I probably should just have linked to the GoogleGraph instead of arm-waving. betsythedevine (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As if I expect an ED admin to vote in an unbiased manner. Orthodoxbush (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF, please. Kaini (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's ex-ED admin, actually. But whatev - Alison ❤ 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You had this to say about it three years ago. What changed? Orthodoxbush (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 02:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Alvey[edit]

Robb Alvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant use of page for self-promotion. Individual does not have influence outside of his own interests.

  • First, subject does not satisfy the 'significant coverage' requirement. While there are articles that discuss him, many do so tangentially or in context of the video game companies he's working for. His notability as an employee/spokesperson of a notable company fails my interpretation of WP:BIO#Invalid Criteria.
  • Second, one or two sentence mentions do little to convince me that "sources address the subject directly in detail".
  • Finally, several of the listed sources are forums or personal pages and violate WP:RS. Unlike Bearian, I fail to see any reliable and third-party sources in the Google search he linked. All of them either are not reliable, or not independent of the subject. Most are both. DubiousIrony yell 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More