< 27 January	29 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antenarrative[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A story concept being promoted by its inventor, Dboje (talk · contribs). Unsurprisingly most of the incoming links were added by Dboje: storytelling, story arc and Fabula and syuzhet. And the addition to Barbara Czarniawska was added by a sock puppet (but I hasten to say that I saw no evidence that it was a sock puppet of Dboje). Has anything changed since the AfD five years ago? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

Delete. As noted, this is part of a walled garden of articles by User:Dboje about theories he himself has originated, with "references" that don't make it clear if any part of these theories is accepted by others, and the article itself is well-fortified with gibberish and evasion rather than a description of the thing named. Even assuming notability of this concept could be clearly shown, the article would need a complete rewrite, so the present text is superfluous in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, without third party evidence of use/adoption and some balancing criticism this reads like a promotional piece; other related articles look to be extracts from Boje. Full disclosure, I know of Boje's work and am involved in the field of organisational narrative. --Snowded ^TALK 07:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be moved to wikiversity?Harrypotter (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Snowded. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:48, 29 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

River Oaks Baptist School[edit]

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

Primary and middle schools are not covered by the convention of WP:NHS or the guidelines of Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education which advises that this article would need a "clear claim to notability" which it fails to do. Consequently the article fails the policy of WP:ORG and appears unlikely to address notability in the near future. Previously PRODded so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note two things in this article that might set this school apart from the usual non-notable lower-grade school. (1) It has been named a Blue Ribbon School, which (if I recall correctly) has been considered an indication of notability in some past AfDs; and (2) its foreign language program won a significant award from the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, which described the program as an "out-standing, exemplary, national model program." (I added a cite to the ACTFL page for the latter.[1]) --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think you do recall correctly. At least one school apparently notable only for a Blue Ribbon award has survived its Afd discussion: Crocker Middle School. However, in that case the AfD was withdrawn, resulting in automatic Keep. That's not a great precedent, since over 4,000 schools have gotten this Blue Ribbon award, and most of them would probably not be notable for much else. At this point, per nom, I think WP:SCHOOL amounts to WP:ORG and this AfD should follow that guideline. Since there's apparently no "deep" coverage of River Oaks, the question become whether there has been multiple independent coverage that's not "[T]rivial or incidental". WP:ORG's listing of "merely trivial coverage" includes the possibly-applicable "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization". Leaving the Blue Ribbon aside, do we have only "passing mention"? The mentions of River Oaks' involvement in pulling books from its library shelves, and of being the only school in the nation to win a certain award for its foreign language programs, might be considered more than "merely trivial". In particular, the award announcement for the language program seems to go well beyond "passing mention". Yakushima (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The stuff about the school changing its e-mail server setup is "deep" coverage - Information about the school doesn't have to take up the entire article to be considered "deep" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the school library also has significant coverage in an RS (a book). WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are your thoughts about the developments regarding significant coverage? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep although they are not automatically notable this one has some sourcing to it, needs some work thoughThisbites (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm still skeptical, but its library does get more than a page's worth of treatment in a book about library design[2], and the google scholar results suggest that its award-winning language program owes something to a willingness to bring in researchers in EFL linguistics. Yakushima (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What are your thoughts about the developments regarding significant coverage? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per my replies to Thisbites and Arxiloxos, above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushima (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 January 2011
~~Week Keep~~ Keep - There are at least two reliable sources now which provide significant coverage to aspects of the school (e-mail servers, and the school library) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After finding the magazine article about the 2004 award, changing to "Keep." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article about email servers refers to River Oaks Baptist School as an example of an organisation that uses an off-site host to back up emails. However, the essential focus is about the email backup system, and the school is, as I said, merely used as an example. It is true that the example gets a significant mention, but it is not primarily about the school, and this sort of coverage does not establish notability. Any other school that uses this system could equally well have served as an example. Likewise the passage int eh book about library design merely uses this school as an example, and no doubt there are thousands of other school libraries that could have served the same purpose. If a particular school is included in a book because the author thinks the the school has some particularly significant feature then that is an indication of notability. If, however, the school is chosen just because it is a typical example and the author wants a typical example for illustration then it does not indicate any notability of that particular school. Or, to put it another way, "the school library has an exceptional and interesting architecture" is a reason for notability, and a book mentioning the school for that reason is evidence for that notability, whereas "this school has a quite typical school library" is not a reason for notability, and a book mentioning it as a typical example is not evidence of notability. As for the other references apart from those, they are the usual brief mentions, a newspaper report on the head of the school retiring, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the reporting on the school's e-mail system makes a big deal over very little, and in general, the article seems like a grab-bag of media mentions. But that's not the issue here -- the issue is WP:N and specifically WP:ORG (since WP:NHS doesn't apply.) You make no mention whatsoever of awards won, when these might actually be pivotal to the Keep case. You also don't establish that the ROBS library was given as a merely "typical" example. It might have been singled out as an example of good library design practice. And by putting "this school has a quite typical school library" in quotes, you might lead some editors here to think the book actually says that (or some such thing). It doesn't. The subtitle of the book ("Drawing on Function and Appeal"), and the lack of any particular criticism of ROBS library in the book's discussion, suggest that this library actually was selected on the grounds of distinctive "function" and "appeal". The library coverage, together with details on its (soon retiring) chief administrator and its awards, is part of a case that this is a notably excellent middle school. Can you supply more detail on how you believe ROBS fails WP:ORG? Yakushima (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School has received several prestigious awards (normally considered a strong claim to notability in AfD discussions for schools) and it has been written up by multiple reliable sources independent of the school. Although the article is lame and some of the sources are trivial, the combination of multiple national awards and that article about the school library identify this to me as a school that people outside the local area may have heard of and would expect to be able to read about. --Orlady (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am unsure how this would work in practice, if recipients of awards given out by ACTFL are considered automatically notable then presumably we ought to have articles for ACTFL-award-winning people like Clarissa Adams Fletcher (and her school)[3] but then also winners of any other ACTFL awards such as the ACTFL Video Podcast Contest, the Nelson Brooks Award for Excellence in the Teaching of Culture, the ACTFL-National Textbook Company Award for Building Community Interest in Foreign Language Education and so forth (see [4])? Fæ (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I can sympathize -- but WP:ORG seems, if anything, a bit looser than some notability guidelines for award-winning people (depending on what they might or might not be notable for). If so, that could be a problem with the guidelines. I'd prefer more consistency among them, but am also reminded that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." In this case, we've got multiple awards for the school -- "automatic notability" from a single award (the issue you seem to raise above) isn't really on the table. So what do we have to settle, and what do we have to go on for settling it? WP:ORG doesn't mention "awards" per se, but it does say that "[o]rganizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school ....) may be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." The award notices certainly count as "substantial verifiable evidence". But do these notices also count as "coverage ... outside the organization's local area"? "Coverage", to me, implies coverage by news organizations of some kind, but is it really that narrow? Well, let's look at the policy that WP:ORG links at its phrasing "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage": WP:NRVE. And it says "significant independent coverage or recognition" An award certainly counts as "recognition"; whether it's "significant" might be subject-dependent. If the subject is middle schools, maybe national Blue Ribbon and/or Melba foreign-language program count as "significant"? Yakushima (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would suggest the following interpretation as a rule of thumb - (a) notable awards are only notable if they have their own (long term) stand-alone articles (hence Blue Ribbon Schools Program is okay as it is an article about the award but ACTFL is not, as the article is about the organization rather than any particular award) and (b) an award-winning organization is either notable for winning multiple notable awards or if a single award winner, then winning the award should have caused sustained significant impact (such as attention from national newspapers). Note, sustained is important in the latter case otherwise the article may fail WP:1E. Fæ (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:1E is entitled "People notable for one event", not "Organizations notable for one event". The subject here is an organization, not a person. Should organizations be given more slack? Arguably not, but WP:ORG is the applicable guideline here. I like your attempt at an interpretation, and in fact I would support a WP:ORG guideline change like that. A wave of AfDs would certainly follow. But maybe that's just me -- after all, I'd prefer that high schools fall under WP:ORG. The present WP:ORG may be unacceptably imprecise, but it says nothing about the required "recognition" being "sustained", or having a "significant" impact, only that the admissable "coverage" (which can apparently include "recognition") be "substantial". (Whatever that means.) I think the place to settle these issues is on the WP:ORG and/or WP:SCHOOL talk pages, not in AfD at the moment. Until the uncertainties can be cleared up, I'd prefer a WP:PRESERVE approach to this article. (Which could include a Redirect and Merge so long as it was accompanied by good faith efforts to support a clearer WP:ORG guideline). Please note that I'm hardly a rabid inclusionist about anything, much less about schools. (See, for example, my position in the ongoing Afd for Crocker Highlands Elementary School, where I see WP:ORG as unambiguously indicating deletion.) Yakushima (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are verifiable facts about this school, thus WP:V is satisfied. Then there is the notability guideline. There we have The ACTFL Melba D Woodruff Award for Exemplary Elementary Foreign Language Program. Apparently, the ACTFL took note of this school. We also have the Blue Ribbon. Now the main contributer of this article seems to have twisted in all sorts of curious curves, to warp the article around the reliable sources about the cloud email service, which isn't about the school, but about the cloud email, and the article ends up all lopsided. Let's not do that. Lets just have a nice small article, with verifiable information about the school (where it is, how large it is, history), and have the awards that show notability in the lead, and pretty please, let's not include a long story about why, how, and how sucessfully the school employs a cloudbased email solution. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From my understanding, reliable sources dictate what we say about the article. If the reliable sources make a big deal about ROBS's e-mail service, then we make a big deal about ROBS's e-mail service. If the article looks lopsided, then it has to look that way, until we get more information. Once we get such an abundance of information that we then have to editorialize, then we can start chopping things out. Until then, we aren't in a position to do that. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure there are plenty of reliable primary sources about the school. They don't help with the notability issue, obviously, but if they are reliable, then we can use them. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just found a journal article about ROBS receiving an award from another foundation. I think now we have enough sources to solidly say that it is notable as per WP:ORG. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has some references, however not enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. The article itself doesn't give any indication of sufficient notability. Polyamorph (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Church chairs[edit]

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

No sources, no evidence of notability, seems to be original research. Some passages can be found verbatim on other websites (e.g. http://tensilegroup.net/products_nuts.htm) so there are likely to be copyright issues too. PROD was removed by the author: PROD reason was "Does not fit notability guidelines. No reputable sources." JamesBWatson (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:OR, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Article not only fails WP:N, but also WP:V and WP:OR. Dusti^*poke* 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I added prod to this with the reason "Does not fit notability guidelines. No reputable sources". Also fails with WP:ORIGINAL, WP:V, and WP:IRS. There might even be a Conflict of Interest, when the author removed my prod he gave the reason "Made changes to add to the verifiability as I am the author of the research of CFMA". Bluefist^talk 00:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article appears to be original research and also fails notability. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conflicted delete - the admin in me sees an essay filled withoriginal research, lacking references and written in a bizarre tone, but the jokester in me is insistant that an article with phrase "Joshua Gabrielson of CFMA conducted research across a five year period and found that out of the 342,000 plus churches about 46% of churches today have chairs in their facilities," is somehow worth keeping around. Oh well. l'aquatique[talk] 20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to say that the topic is perhaps worth an article, as 'church chairs' do differ from the chairs found in restaurants, parish halls, scout huts and other places where movable seating is required. The lockability is a valuable feature, and the addition of the book etc holders, together with the extra width necessitated by the lockability also differentiate the church chair. (If they're locked together, there's no room for overhang; this is probably why the lockable chairs in my doctor's waiting room are carefully spaced several inches apart...). I'm not a notable frequenter of churches (weddings, funerals, and possibly to see what they do with something of mine...), but pews seem still 'in' here in the UK. I have no cause to visit the charismatic, pentecostal and other such modern outfits, so I couldn't say what they sit on. This article, however, is probably not the one. It would take a complete rewrite and quite some researching to provide neutral and reliable sources. (As usual, I'm not volunteering.) Peridon (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only church I've ever been in that didn't have pews just had normal folding chairs - but your comment makes me wonder if there isn't something from this article we could salvage and merge into Pews? I've been watching this page and I believe that at one point it did have some references. Just a thought. l'aquatique[talk] 23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apart from everything else that has been pointed out above I must point out how ludicrously precise this article is. Are we supposed to believe that there are world-wide standards for the dimensions, steel gauge, plywood thickness and other characteristics of "church chairs"? And that those standards are measured in inches, which the vast majority of the world doesn't use? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Jawad Asghar[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable but has minor mentions in some external sites. l'aquatique[talk] 21:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity: executive of a company we don't have an article on. Article is mostly a list of his personal goals: good for him for wanting to determine the produce quota or whatever, but Wikipedia is not your C:\My_Documents folder. And let's not even get into the silly Facebook-esque photos. Ugh. I thought we didn't have pages like this anymore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE. Company he heads doesn't even have an article of its own. Content is either non-encyclopedic pep-talking, or puffed-up reporting on the state of the citrus harvest that is of interest to only a tiny set of potential readers. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, but related to the same subjects as the socks in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azamishaque/Archive. Closing admin should be very mindful of possible socks.--Terrillja _talk 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this article is slightly different than the previous article at Ahmad Jawad, it's close enough. Following an AFD for that one the article was apparently recreated enough to warrant salting. This is borderline CSD G5. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of significant coverage in WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG, essentially biospam. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, This AFD debate is already decided. iam old user of wikipedia from the date of their creation, but due to away for some years.i forget my user name and create new one.i saw this activity; so thought to add my opinion. i will give you hundreds of biographies of living person who is not noteable but still is there in WP. but still this chap is 25% noteable in some areas. if admns desire to be deleted this page. delete straight away..why create this drama of Articles of Deletion. WP vision is to be change day by day due to different school of thoughts. --USLeaks ^t/_c 20:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- That sounds like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to me. And WP vision is to be change day by day due to different school of thoughts... er, no, it's to create an encyclopedia about notable topics based on reliable sources. (But I'm glad my signature is cool enough to steal... complete with the timestamp. Ha.) --Kinu ^t/_c 19:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - USLeaks, perhaps you can clarify your position- do you believe this article, irrespective of all others, should be kept or deleted, and why? l'aquatique[talk] 20:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Kinu. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*** L'Aquatique, as per my point of view i think we can give some time and check whether its improve or not. The notablity question may reflect on different biographies, the reference which is mentioned is reliable on this article. if we can creat some groupism, then transparency factor should be effected. Every WP user have its own judgement, we cannot announced the results from the feedback of few users. i believe some points of notablity is there is this article. rest is up to you or honarable admns of WP.--USLeaks ^t/_c 16:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Whether the article is notable or not is what we are here to decide. Keep in mind that an AfD is not a death sentence, if awesome new sources come up or this guy suddenly becomes notable in some other way (i.e. record for most amount of fruit juggled) then you can go to deletion review, present your findings, and they will likely restore the page. The article is not really going to get deleted, more like hidden, as administrators can still see it and thus we can restore it to exactly how it was. I hope that allays your fears a bit. l'aquatique[talk] 16:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have struck out the comments above made by sockpuppet USLeaks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azamishaque. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Appleton[edit]

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

No serious evidence of notability. Several of the references are links to pages not mentioning Appleton, others are to his own website or other non-independent sources, including promotional sites. There is one very brief piece from a local newspaper, and no other evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. PROD was removed by an IP with no edits away from this topic. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Merge to Kylie Ireland article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The PROD reason was: ((quote|The subject isn't notable. All the references are either the subjects own web sites or passing mentions in reference to his wife. There isn't any major coverage in secondary sources. Notability isn't inherited in this case. Applicable policies/guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:BLP, WP:PEOPLE, and WP:INHERIT. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing really to merge to his wife's article. Whatever relates to her is already there. There's nothing here to show that Appleton is himself notable. Dismas|^(talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to kylieThisbites (talk) 04:40, 29 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Daniel[edit]

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

Autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged but that is what this appears to be: it was written by User:Harris DC about the Harris County District Clerk. Whilst I commend the author for removing the most peacocky of the content within the article when advised to do so, this still remains an entirely flattering and one-sided profile of a subject whose political career depends on a positive public perception and appears to fall foul of WP:SOAP. Then there is the question of notability: WP:POLITICIAN notes that elected politicians at state level or greater are generally notable, but this is a county post. Not all the refs mention the subject and those that do are doubtful in terms of meeting WP:GNG. I have strong reservations about the article's neurality and there does not appear to be sufficient notability to justify its inclusion. I42 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The office he was elected to is nowhere near high enough for him to meet our notability guidelines for politicians. Article can be recreated if he moves up to a higher office. No other persuasive claim to notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally deleted it per ((db-g11)) as spam and restored it (reluctantly) per author Harris DC's complaint on my talk page. After restoration, Harris DC removed speedy deletion tags and Collinsbarry showed up for a single edit to do the same. I agree completely with the nominator's deletion rationale and with Cullen 348. – Athaenara ✉ 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those contributing to the page are new to wikipedia. Athaenara is right in that the guidelines on rules where not initially followed, but that has since ceased after being put on notice by same.

The office answers to 4.3 million tax payers. The office holder was voted in by over half a million voters in the 2010 election (with over 1.2 million people total voting in this race alone). The county is the largest in TX. The DA (district attorney Pat Lykos has her own page, yet without the district clerk to manage the Sheriff and DA's criminal intake PLUS the 74 countywide courts and staff and paperwork/ filings that go withit, she cannot do her job and prosecute any criminals.

It is a farce to say that this position is not notable when the office controls 500 employees and 26.6 million dollars in budget. It is a farce when the district clerk of the largest county in Texas gets elected with more votes than candidate for US senate or Governor in other states like Delaware. I understand that the username was in conflict, but i just picked a name. My goal is to flesh out the existing Harris County website with a note on each of its office holders.

Not sure the editors are aware, but Houston is only one third the size in population of Harris County (and resides almost entirely inside the county). More people voted for District Clerk then for Mayor Annise Parker.--Harris DC (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, there is no substantial third party coverage of this person. There is one reference that is actually about him, the rest are mentions. Hairhorn (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A county-wide or city-wide position in a large municipalty is sometimes kept, and sometimes not. I would not say it would be a "farce" to delete this article, but I think it should be kept per WP:POLITICIAN. District attorneys of larger counties usually rate their own article, see, e.g., David Soares and Cyrus Vance, Jr., but county legislators or special district commisioners do not, see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Blakeman. City attorneys and "corporation counsel" are not normally notable, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Goode, nor are councillers from small cities. Carol Moseley Braun, who was Cook County, Illinois Recorder of deeds, a similar position to that of Harris County district clerk, at the time of her election to the United States Senate. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added three more on point (about--not mentions) mainstream articles and Electoral Summary to show orders of magnitude.--Harris DC (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Contributor and defender is a WP:SPA and there are probably issues here of WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Houston is currently the forth largest city in the US (residing almost entirely inside Harris County), and yet is only one third of Harris County's entire population. The County-wide office holders clearly merit articles.--Harris DC (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above, in terms of WP:POLITICIAN, county-wide or city-wide position in a large municipalty is sometimes kept, and sometimes not. However, in this case, the latter seems appropriate. Regardless of one's position on whether one of the biographical subguidelines is met, given that this is a WP:BLP article, WP:GNG still needs to be met, and the substantive coverage from WP:RS does not exist here. Some weak election coverage and information about the office itself do not indicate non-trivial information actually about the person. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a position that will make someone notable for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, even in a large metropolitan area. Some county positions are: the county sherriff or DA would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good arguments have been madeas to why this an exception to the local government rule. Additionally, although sources are currently lacking, they surely can be found and most likely will be added with time. The vanity issue has been addressed and begun to be remedied. I don't love the article in its current state, but deletion is not the answer, since it has the full potential to meet verifiability and notability.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: seeing as how this is a WP:BLP, deletion would be the answer if WP:V isn't met. The general potential to meet it isn't good enough. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS,WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:AUTO. It's basically just self-promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:26, 28 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 and improve. Discussion of any possible merger can continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Ron Paul movement[edit]

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

Doesn't have anything to do with drafting Ron Paul. It's basically just a summary of his campaigns and short list of supporters. Nothing here that warrants a separate article; any useful content can be merged into the Ron Paul article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article combines pieces from his 2008 article with wishful thinking about 2012. --B (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a WP:USPE member who has worked on draft-movement articles for several candidates, I find it clear that the subject movement is notable. Both objectors refer only to its misstated focus, in that it says it's about drafting (and particularly 2012), but includes much material relating to the 2008 run rather than the 2007 draft movement. There was also a notable draft movement in ~~2003-4~~ 2001, when Paul declined to run. The lede stating that the movement is only about 2012 is mistaken. I may have time to fix these errors quickly, ~~but I am not guaranteeing it~~ (done); however, the discussion turns not on the current misweighted state of the article, but on whether there is sufficient reliable-source coverage to warrant a separate article, which there is. Note: the nominator also subsequently nominated another Paul-related article that had survived two prior AFDs, which is not evidence of unclouded intentions, especially given the timing of these noms in the election cycle. JJB 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The nominator's motivations are immaterial. I stated eight months ago on the article's talk page that it did not address its purported subject and that it was AfD-able. In the time since there have been no efforts, by you or anyone else, to improve the situation. And as I point out below, the article is now being overtaken by events. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My review indicates what has happened is that this article contains much material that relates instead to the redirect Ron Paul Revolution (a section of Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008). RPR was AFD'd immediately after creation, with a closure of "delete" (no GFDL issue because copied from merge target), and then a rapid recreate as redirect, supporting the AFD's potential for being interpreted as merge consensus. At that AFD, Wasted abstained, and I predicted that RPR would someday merit its own article; and the content of the present article largely supports that theory. Thus I judge Wasted's concerns to be WP:SOFIXITs, and the path forward seems to be (1) move much content either to a new RPR article or the current redirected section, and (2) add sources on the 2003-4 and 2007 movements, as well as on the senatorial draft movement, which is also a "Draft Ron Paul movement". I will be working on (2) first. JJB 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep per JJB. Subject is notable and article is reliably sourced. Per his comments, there may be room for improvement and cleanup, but not grounds for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there enough to warrant a whole article for it? There are draft movements for all sorts of people. Even if you do improve it, I don't see why it can't be merged into the Ron Paul article. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – By its opening paragraph, the article claims to be about "a grassroots effort to convince United States Congressman Ron Paul of Texas to run for president in the 2012 U.S. presidential election." In fact, almost nothing in the article addresses this subject; instead it's just a completely unnecessary rehash of his 2008 campaign (all of which is already covered in Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008) with a few mentions of his 2010 campaigning for others and some opinion polls thrown in (both of which can be covered in Ron Paul). Furthermore, this article is already badly out of date; the real speculation for 2012 is no longer Paul running for president again but instead running for the open senatorial seat from Texas: see here and here and here and here and so on. Paul has no chance to ever be elected president, but he has a real chance to be elected senator, something that can be covered in the United States Senate election in Texas, 2012 article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per JJB. Gage (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are sources covering the topic, and the problems seen by the nominator can be fixed through editing, then there is no cause to delete the article. The lead paragraph can be edited to clarify what the article is about. This topic is clearly covered by reliable sources, and if the article was edited to include all of the appropriate information, would overwhelm the proposed merger target. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for the Article Rescue Squadron to review. SnottyWong ^communicate 18:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wasted Time above. This article is not actually about any grassroots effort. No prejudice against re-creating the article from scratch if it can actually be focused on the grassroots efforts (assuming enough sources are available for such an article). SnottyWong ^communicate 18:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snotty, I have just obliged you with eight new sources about the 2001-4 and 2006-8 grassroots Draft Ron Paul movements, to say nothing of the 2012 president or Senate races, right off the first page of Google. Digression: I don't understand something. I keep finding myself "keep"ing for articles with 30 sources and heaping additional sources on them to overcome AFD "delete" objections, while I also keep finding myself "delete"ing for articles with 2.5 sentences in 3 sources and requesting additional sources for them to overcome AFD "keep" objections, and I still find new folks debating me on both sides all the time. If anyone can help me understand why I'm so often on the "wrong" side of AFDs, please advise at my talk. JJB 20:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment The work done on the article so far is good, but I'm still not seeing how this deserves its own article, especially when only a few references that I can tell explicitly mention a grassroots draft movement. Most are just political speculation. This can easily be merged, as there is a lot of redundancy. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I share this concern about the loose definition of "draft" (and hence the dubious rationale for the article). For example, the article currently says "Paul has been drafted both for U.S. Senate[21][22][23][24] ..." Yet none of those four cites says anything about a "draft", either explicitly or implicitly. In reality, the possibility of Paul running for Senate comes from purely conventional, non-draft reasons. The incumbent Republican isn't running again, the seat has opened up, and both national ideological trends (Tea Party) and personal factors (his son got elected to the Senate) make Paul a quite viable candidate. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nominator.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis: All, there is much miscommunication going on, and AFD is the place to settle it. E.g., I put in the four Senate links because they are Wasted's own links, as above, and I inferred they were relevant. (If Wasted is instead saying that Paul has no chance and the draft is not "real", that is a WP:CRYSTAL argument repeatedly defeated in 2007-8 AFDs). Further, since notability of the topic, per se, seems so obvious, I presumed it is acceptable for the article to have other sources that are not intended directly to show notability but to provide context (e.g., Paul's comments to Fox about running are relevant and should not remain deleted). So let's start again and establish, clearly communicated, what this article is about. — John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below

The four Senate links were to show that the article was out of date, because the attention lately has been to him running for the Senate instead of for President. Paul does indeed have a real chance of being elected Senator. But you have shown no evidence that he is being "drafted" to run for Senate. Any time a Senate seat opens up, political people look to visible House members as possible replacements, take polls to evaluate their chances, etc. There is no difference between what's happening here with Paul than with dozens of other potential candidates in every election cycle.

The underlying assumption of this article seems to be that by definition, whenever Paul runs for an office, or thinks about running for an office, it is because he is being "drafted". I think this completely misunderstands the traditional meaning of a political draft.

Anyway, commenting on this AfD and editing this article has just reminded me of what I already knew from four years ago: there are few if any common points of reference when dealing with Paulites and chances of agreement on anything are slim. My verdict on this article is still delete but I will stop commenting here or making changes to the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No such underlying assumption intended. In the Senate race I simply thought you implied he was being drafted, so given your courteous offer I will respond by happily self-undoing those sources. In the minor races where draft-Paul status is unclear, I merely inserted a (cough) first draft, in accord with my former source review indicating some draft-Paul meme was a factor, because the existence and notability of "Draft Ron Paul movement" was clearly proven in the major races, as indicated below. JJB 02:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Any movement to draft Paul, and any call by an individual for a movement to draft Paul, are directly relevant; these have all been called "Draft Ron Paul movement"s. (The burden of proving otherwise is on the deleters.) The word "movement", as Snotty notes, generally includes some grassroots component, although the battle over the word "grassroots" was in mediation recently so we should not lean too hard on that word. What do we have that's direct? Ignoring the smaller campaigns, (1) Paul was drafted for president in 1987 ("drafted" includes at least the wooing to carry another party's banner for a year), though the applicability of "draft" is not sourced directly yet. (2) The 2001-4 draft movement sat in Paul's WP bio, unquestioned as such, for years. In an hour I showed this draft movement was noted by the DCCC, LRC, Murray Sabrin, and Chuck Baldwin, besides the supplemental WP:SPS; if one thinks more sources are needed to carry this subhead, please advise. (3) The 2006-7 (Republican) and 2007-8 (third-party) draft movement were noted by a few sources, but because there was a real run begun very early, there was not as much data this cycle; however, Paul's allusion to the grassroots encouragement in his Mar 2007 candidacy speech, not yet sourced but undeniable, certainly establishes the baseline here. (4) In this cycle, you have CFL working on grassroots efforts through two CPAC polls (the latter is scheduled next week and so this AFD is poorly timed, as it precludes the ability to gauge a knowably scheduled major grassroots effort to promote the candidacy, very certainly applicable); and you have 6 or 7 notable endorsements, which I have not yet reviewed to determine if they are calls for draft (directly applicable) or mere endorsements (indirectly).

In short, the sources already in the article, plus a couple noncontroversial unsourced data points, establish beyond doubt that there have been four or more notable "Draft Ron Paul movement"s. What more do you want? JJB 16:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't just "did a Draft Ron Paul movement exist" - it's, "is there anything worth saying beyond the article about his 2008 campaign and his bio"? For example, the 2012 content is all about speculation that he might run, not about a draft movement as far as I can see. --B (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, virtually everything listed that shows it exists has been cut from the bio and campaign and would unduly weight both. Spinout again. JJB 01:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep Donatrip (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hotcourses Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they read like paid press releases some are merely trivial coverage or mentions.

This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Hotcoursesusa.com

Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be part of a Wikipedia spam campaign, as indicated in the discussion linked above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure promotion. Acabashi (talk) 20:10, 29 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 delete. CSDs G11 and A7 HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA Web Solutions[edit]

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

Delete vanity promotional entry with no independent third-party sources to verify claims in the article. The "sources" included are entries in web directories, which suffice only to verify the company's existence. It has been tagged since April 2010, and appears to fail WP:CORP. Mind matrix 19:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. The kicker is the articles' creator is self admittedly an "online marketing specialist".--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 28 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest with the Mostest[edit]

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

Complete overly detailed plot transcription for a non-notable cartoon episode. Damiens.rf 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The theatrically-released Looney Tunes cartoons are generally notable, and we have articles on hundreds of them. That said, I agree the article is fairly poor but it's more a candidate for cleanup than deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Starblind. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is a very iconic cartoon: it's referred to a lot in some communities, and given that I went to wikipedia to look it up, should speak to its notability 76.10.147.171 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Feeney (television writer)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability standards, at least with verifiable references. IMDB is the only source material. The article is repeatedly vandalized with "fluff" material being added or reverted, which makes me think this article is posted and/or maintained by the subject or his buddies. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable television writer. IMDB is not a reputable source. A google search included people other than him, but mostly turned up weak sources that only proved what was already in the article. Per article, only has written a episode or two each for a series of failed shows. Poor guy. He has my sympathy, but not my vote.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone working in show biz is going to leave a trail. However the article does not claim or the sources show that he is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. That should not make him an object of pity. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of many thousands of working script writers. Congratulations on getting work in a tough industry but that alone isn't notable. Lacks reliable sources and for some reason is a target for bizarre BLP-violating vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable journeyman scriptwriter. Qworty (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the content contained in this article is incorrect, libelous and in direct violation of the Wikipedia Principles and Content Standards Policy. -- Ken Tigar, FPDC. 09:15, 01 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenTigar (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete. David Feeney is a significant player in the Hollywood television industry, but more than that, he is the co-host of a very popular comedy podcast entitled Daves of Thunder which gives him a significant level of notoriety. -- LiquidJustice (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Give some evidence from reliable sources that this podcast, and therefore Feeney, is notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sudalai Madan. Consensus is that the content doesn't belong here, but there's also opinion that this could be a reasonable redirect to Sudalai Madan, so I'm deleting and redirecting. —SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karadi Madasamy[edit]

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

Non notable - no sources found by internet searches except copies under Wiki share licences. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently doesn't exist except in wiki mirrors.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. AFAIK karadi madan (Tamil: கரடி மாடன்) is another name for Sudalai Madan, but the article explicitly claims other wise. It is possible there are published offline Tamil books which support the article's assertions. Keep if sources are added else redirect to Sudalai Madan--Sodabottle (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. In the absence of any reliable sources, the content is original research, but it's a good idea to redirect to Sudalai Madan as noted by Sodabottle. Salih (talk) 15:49, 31 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 delete – deleted by User:RHaworth as copyvio. Danger (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)))[reply]

Audubon Engineering[edit]

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

non notable company WuhWuzDat 18:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. The material is copied from [5] with "we" replaced with "Audubon Engineering". And spam to boot. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 31 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) 01:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great commission church[edit]

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

Procedural nom. I have no affiliation with this group, and it only caught my eye because I lived in the area for a while. When I came across this on new page patrol, it was all of 3 sentences with no references, and obviously soon to be speedied. I worked on it yesterday to see what I could do to save it, and am the main contributor in its current state. It was speedy tagged yesterday, but the tag was removed by the nom when it became apparent I was still working on it. I've reached out to the creator for any additional info s/he could provide, but have had no response. I would say, from an outside perspective, the main problem is pretty obvious: notability. Anyway, I gave it 24 hours to see if I could improve it further...but this is about the best I can do. Please do not consider this nom a vote one way or the other. David Able 18:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 00:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it, and untagged it when I was made aware that the bulk of the work had been done by someone from outside the Church, and that there was a chance for it. (Despite my track record of tagging for deletion, I would rather have an article saved.) I salute David Able for his valiant attempt here, and for bringing it to AfD. The Church is still perhaps a little young to have achieved notability (unlike certain other 'church' establishments of less good repute...). Unfortunately, merely existing and doing one's job isn't notable enough. Peridon (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just an ordinary church, really. The reference in the local magazine doesn't establish notability. St Anselm (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I commend the nominator for working hard to improve the article before bringing this to AFD. Alas, the sourcing in the article is insufficient to establish notability nor can I find any more. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael W. Nichols[edit]

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

non notable former USMC sergeant. 50% of the external links and references are to his own websites. WuhWuzDat 16:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Non notable"??? First of all there is no such thing as a "non notable" US Marine, who has honorably and faithfully served this country. Second, SSgt. Nichols is one of the most notable Marine Corps Drill Instructor ever, aside from R. Lee Ermy, especially with the younger generation and the extreme popularity of the film Ears, Open. Eyeballs, Click. Just by his notability on this film alone, is enough to qualify him for a wikipedia page, especially in compared to some of the other wiki pages out there. Via the web he is not so notable by his full name, Michael W. Nichols, but is extremely popular under the names, "SSgt Nichols"or "SDI SSgt Nichols", from the film and the Marine Corps. His youtube page alone is about to hit a million plays, for his videos as a Drill Instructor, is that not notable?

The problem is being known and famous in the military world does not always cross over to the civilian world. Therefore you are less likely to find references on the web or in books regarding notable figures in the military, unless they are out of the military and actively involved in politics. It's been like this for years, military members never get the notoriety or respect they truly deserve which is extremely unfortunate considering if it were not for their service, since the beginning of the founding of this country, there would be no country!

Here is a link to a trailer featuring SSGT Nichols http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbLAkDP0sDA also another link to a speech SSGT Nichols gives about helping to change around the life of a recruit (ME). So before you call a Man "not notable" maybe you should do a little bit more research before you pass judgement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg1LAoBgGqE

Review then you'll understand why this gentlemen deserves a wikipedia page that along with plenty of third party references provided below --Cmanhattan24 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)— Cmanhattan24 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps I need to change the name and instead create a page name titled, "Drill Instructor SSgt Nichols" thoughts? --Cmanhattan24 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Notable as used in Wikipedia, and especially in articles for deletion refers to the inclusion criteria at WP:NOTABILITY. -- Whpq (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Creme-Magazine: http://www.creme-magazine.com/article/features/the-art-of-war

Social Blend http://social-blend.com/2009/11/10/zero-freeze-recruit-freeze-social-blend-90/

Talking with Heroes with SSgt. Nichols http://talkingwithheroes.com/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=1011

Leatherneck Online Mag about me in Iraq: http://www.leatherneckcom/forums/showthread.php?t=38902

Marine Corps New about me in Iraq: http://www.marine-corps-news.com/2006/10/a_day_in_the_life_of_motor_tra.htm

Marine Parents United Event: http://www.marineparentsunited.com/#/special-guests-2008/4521224200

Published Book – “Black Friday – Prepare for Enlisted Boot Camp” http://www.amazon.com/Black-Friday-Prepare-Enlisted-ebook/dp/B004A156PE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1296250656&sr=8-1

News Blaze: http://newsblaze.com/militaryresources.html --Cmanhattan24 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cmanhattan24, I notice that in the list above you wrote "Marine Corps New [sic] about me in Iraq" and "Leatherneck Online Mag about me in Iraq" (my emphasis in both quotes). Which leads me to ask, are you Michael Nichols? This should not have a bearing on whether the article is deleted or not but it is always useful to identify autobiographies so that potential conflict of interest and neutrality issues can be monitored. Best, nancy 10:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Additional References to consider for Michael W. Nichols (Senior Drill Instructor SSgt Nichols with the discussion above:

http://www.glorygutsandglitter.com/2010/03/saluting-ssgt-michael-w-nichols.html

http://www.ssgtnichols.com/about.html

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117927284/

http://www.usmc.mil/unit/marforpac/Pages/welcome_backup.aspx

http://www.motoent.com/staff-bios ( Cmanhattan24 (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

ANOTHER NOTE I have put plenty of links at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Nichols perhaps I'm linking wrong. The point is I dont feel the page should be considered an orphan, with all these links like I provided: Drill Instructor, United States Marine Corps, Ears, Open. Eyeballs, Click., Metairie, Louisiana, Lutcher High School, bootcamp, The Style Network, Whose Wedding Is It Anyway?, Drill Instructor Ribbon, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Korean Defense Service Medal, Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego.

How many links does someone need to have on there page to not be considered an orphan???? --Cmanhattan24 (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is considered an orphan because little or no other Wikipedia articles link to it. See this list. When you link on the Nichols article it does not create a link at the other end. I don't think it however that it would be sensible at this juncture to add links from other articles - better to wait until this deletion discussion has concluded as if the article gets deleted it will only add to the clean-up work. The fact that that the article currently has an orphan tag on it is not a valid reason to delete and so will not affect the outcome. Best nancy 07:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate it if someone would help rescue the page thank you :) (Cmanhattan24 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - per Whpq, lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails the general notability guideline. Also fails WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per statements made by Anotherclown. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO as lacking significant independent coverage in WP:RS. I have reviewed all of the links cited above and found:

http://www.glorygutsandglitter.com/2010/03/saluting-ssgt-michael-w-nichols.html - blog. Not a reliable source
http://www.ssgtnichols.com/about.html - subject's own website. Not a reliable source
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117927284/ - does not mention the subject. At all.
http://www.usmc.mil/unit/marforpac/Pages/welcome_backup.aspx - deadlink
http://www.motoent.com/staff-bios - website of subject's own company. Not a reliable source
http://www.creme-magazine.com/article/features/the-art-of-war - Glorified blog. No print edition. Not a reliable source
http://social-blend.com/2009/11/10/zero-freeze-recruit-freeze-social-blend-90/ - podcast. Not a reliable source
http://talkingwithheroes.com/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=1011 - advert for an internet radio broadcast.
http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38902 - discussion board. Not a reliable source
http://www.marine-corps-news.com/2006/10/a_day_in_the_life_of_motor_tra.htm - article about motor vehicle operator which includes a single quote from the subject about how many re-supply missions a week his platoon runs amongst quotes from many other soldiers. Nichols is not the subject of the article.
http://www.marineparentsunited.com/#/special-guests-2008/4521224200 - directory listing
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Friday-Prepare-Enlisted-ebook/dp/B004A156PE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1296250656&sr=8-1 - Amazon purchase link for a book by the subject.
http://newsblaze.com/militaryresources.html - directory listing

nancy 11:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to have a print edition to be a reliable source. Does anyone else not believe Creme Magazine is a reliable source? Dream Focus 10:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made three separate observations about the source. A. B. C. I did not say A + B = C Best, nancy 13:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 15:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per analysis of the sources above. Saying someone is "non-notable" is not an insult, it just means that they don't satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion policies, which are based on notability. Not everyone in the military is notable, even drill sergeants who wrote an e-book and made an appearance on a tv show. SnottyWong ^chat 15:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that topic meets WP:SOLDIER or WP:ENTERTAINER. No indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Nancy's comments above. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a link to the article done entirely about him at Military.com. [6] What military magazines exist, and is there a way to check them? Not every magazine has its entire contents online for viewing. Surely this guy was talked about in them. Dream Focus 11:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that was Military.com copying word for word a PD article written by his unit, failing RS. At least they attributed it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: is this a joke? Utterly fails notability requirements: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:MILPEOPLE, and hasn't a single reliable source (thus failing WP:BLP), not to mention that the vast majority aren't even proper biographical references; most only mention him in passing, or mention the two films he was in (not even featured in). Being one of many in a documentary about recruit training and having a fitness video, along with a "published book" (available only as a Kindle eBook is a stretch, as it's only a step above self-publishing) is not enough to prove notability. Frankly, I'm offended by the shameless self-promotion, using the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor to fill his own pockets. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found another source at this video link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlA9WAp-m-c&feature=youtube_gdata_player please review and let me know your thoughts. (66.108.252.99 (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Good find! Notable enough that he is interviewed even by foreign media. I added that to the article. Dream Focus 10:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another note how is the Creme Magazine not a reliable source? Creme-Magazine: http://www.creme-magazine.com/article/features/the-art-of-war (66.108.252.99 (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I agree. It seems like a reliable source. If you search Google news for it, they quote it on major news sites such as MSNBC quote from it, and mention that a famous actor from the Twilight films did an interview in it. [7] Dream Focus 10:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone email the guy yet? We need to find a list of all interviews he has done. Dream Focus 10:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think more about his life is credible enough to be added to his wiki page here is a link to his bio please review and add any more of his life story: http://www.ssgtnichols.com/about.html http://www.motoent.com/staff-bios (66.108.252.99 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of wichita nightclubs[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT. A non-notable topic. — Timneu22 · talk 16:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, lists of trivial things are not what Wikipedia needs. Bluefist^talk 16:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list is non-notable, as are the clubs I suspect. Acabashi (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs major reworking but its a major city and theres bound to be a ton of content on all of its nightlife, might want to move it to businesses of...entertaining in...or recreation in...wichita however.Thisbites (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither this list or the items on it comply with WP:NOTE. It's just cruft. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary list. We mind as well create a nightclub list for every city in the U.S. Dough 48 72 04:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's just an unnecessary list, as per above. Not very notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think it is reasonable to invoke WP:SNOW at this time. A number of editors have mentioned that the topic could perhaps better exist as Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed. If so, discussion on that can continue on the talk page. NW (Talk) 02:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Mohamed Saeed[edit]

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

He died, alleged police brutality, pops back in the news today because the release oh his photo in the midst of the recent unrest has fanned the flames a tad. That's it. I initially mistakenly believed he died during the recent Egyptian unrest and attempted a redirect to such, but now I do not feel that is a feasible solution. This is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E (though the "L" does not literally apply anymore, the concept is the same). It is worth a sentence or two in the 2011 article that his autopsy photo is causing a bit of a ruckus. Please note that "it is reliably sourced!" is not a valid reason for retention when discussing a person known for one event. If it can be shown that the event (death) itself is exceptionally notable, i.e. similar to the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan, then so be it...and the article can be retooled to address the event rather than the person himself...but IMO this does not rise to anything close in terms of impact and sustained world-wide coverage. Tarc (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom says "He died, alleged police brutality.." Did he speak from the great beyond? Edison (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one could use common sense and interpret that as meaning "police brutality was alleged", i.e. after the fact, by others. Facepalm Tarc (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Article should very likely be moved to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed. But the amount of world-wide coverage is just as similar as it was for Neda. See this search, which contains sources such as CNN, San Diego Union - Tribune, The Guardian, NPR, AllAfrica, Reuters, GlobalPost, Washington Post, FOX News, BBC News, The National, ABC News, ect. ect. ect. ect. Silver seren^C 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I just want to note that i'm having trouble assuming good faith about this nomination, considering the nominator and the negative relationship I have with them. Silver seren^C 00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find a lot more news sources when the subject's middle name is excluded, as below. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The problem wit dropping the name though is that by the 6th hit, you're already onto completely different people with the same name. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the same thing when I run the news search, for some reason. The link you mention comes up as number 24 for me, 24th out of 133 hits, with approximately 100 being about our subject. – OhioStandard (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention using Khaled Said (the Westernization of Saeed) and looking at the news for 2010 brings up tons of things about him, which is the search I ran above. Silver seren^C 00:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per Silver seren. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems very widely covered, as per Silverseren. He's right re the move, though. This implies that his death had considerable impact on Egypt, as well. – OhioStandard (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's keep this for awhile as things progress in Egypt. In the long run, he may end up being one of the inspirations for a larger movement and/or possibly revolution. If that ends up being the case, he should have his own page. In the event things quietly die down and life returns to usual in Egypt, he should mentioned in the 2011 Egyptian protests page. But, right now it is too soon to tell. Hobbamock (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobbamock. This is actually on my watchlist because I read about him last week. (Its also already on 4 other wikis. The pic of him on the arabic wikipedia is brutal, btw [8])--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's rare for a death to receive international attention, and six months later this is still in the news. That one of the main groups organizing the protests in Egypt sites his death as motivation just makes this article even more significant. I think it should probably be move to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed, but won't force that issue now. AniMate 23:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to go out o a limb and say that this nomination may not be taking into account how important this death is in the Egyptian protests. Saeed may be the Egyptian equivalent to Emmett Till, a boy whose death helped inspire the United States civil rights movement. AniMate 23:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't think I forsee his death going away anytime soon. A move may be a good idea, though. –MuZemike 23:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep I'm comfortable with moving the article to "death of..." or some such, but I think having the AfD notice on this article is itself inflammatory given it's importance and the current state of Egypt. Tarc, is there any chance you'd be willing to withdraw this? It's clear how it will end, and I see a slim potential of real-world harm from the AfD notice. Hobit (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hobit that this seems inflammatory. I would agree that it should be moved to "Death of..." but considering that it is an important part of what the Egyptian world is using to show corruption, the article itself should stay. Also, Mohamed ElBaradei has visited Saeed's family, suggesting that this is still an important issue within the protests. (I've never discussed on the talk page, so I'm sorry if I added my part incorrectly)

Keep: A politically very notable incident, with importance rising beyond the individual himself. Change to "Death of..." might be a good idea. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to cover the event instead of the person. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable according to WP:GNG. I don't see any need to close this early out of some fear that it might be inflammatory to some people. If anything, the transparency of this discussion might help some people understand the principles of both consensus and transparency. If it clearly falls under WP:SNOW, then close early, but give it a few more days first. First Light (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There's no question of notability. By Jan. 21, "nearly 69,000 people had signed on to the Jan. 25 protest on the 'We Are All Khaled Said' Facebook page." [9] These modern deaths are at present historically important to their lands. Only time and reflection will decide whether they are accorded lasting honors. As for "inflammatory": yes, the revelation of brutality arouses emotions. Should WP help eyes stay closed instead?? Print encyclopedias were by necessity about retrospect; should WP adopt that limitation? Twang (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep Clearly notable, tons of sources and significance. If anything, fine to move this to Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed. --Aude (talk) 02:20, 30 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} 02:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter M. Rhee[edit]

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

Individual fails WP:BLP1E. He is considered notable only as the attending physician to Gabrielle Giffords in the wake of the 2011 Tucson shooting, as all sources indicate. Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS here again.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:Notability problem. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep ~~Hold for now~~ as the article is still developing. Upon checking, this individual has a substantial history that predates the shooting. KimChee (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- KimChee (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- KimChee (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- KimChee (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, although Dr Rhee may not pass the WP:GNG or WP:PROF, he clearly does not fall under WP:BLP1E. His case should be evaluted under WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further checking, the subject had notability / media coverage for other events prior to the shooting (though the latter event substantially raised his profile), satisfying the issue of BLP1E. As director of several medical institutions and having been published regularly in medical journals, he also appears to satisfy WP:PROF. I think this may be the result of a knee-jerk reaction to a rash of other articles (some deservedly) being subject to AfD after being split off from the main 2011 Tucson shooting article. KimChee (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to pass WP:GNG, and due to fact that individual passes WP:BLP1E as indicated by KimChee. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per RightCowLeftCoast et al., however it needs a lot of editorial help to not look like a semi-random assemblage of potpourri. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply as he has at least three other claims to fame, most notably the Quikclot controversy. Appears to pass WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Seen a lot worse articles on surgeons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obscure person but does meet WP criteria. He was personal physician to Clinton, which is BLP1E. Then he has more stuff. Pacific 1818 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the nom's only concern of BLP1E seems to have been proven inconsequential, and I see no other notability issues. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fully cited, easily passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BLP1E not applicable and subject is notable. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious list (OARDEC)[edit]

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

Not a notable topic, fails WP:N. It has been reported that "71 detainees’ names or aliases were found on computers, hard drives, physical lists of Al Qaeda operatives, or other material seized in raids on Al Qaeda safehouses and facilities." This article throws these 71 names together, no matter whether they come from the physical lists or other material, and labels it a "suspicious list". I hope that "list of suspects" is intended, no indication otherwise is given of what would be "suspicious" about this "list" (which is not really a list at all). The two sources given don't discuss this "list" any further beyond the given quote, and no other reliable, independent, indepth sources are available that would shed more light on this. Fram (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and the subjects fail notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page could just as easily have appeared on Wikileaks. This appears to be a list of names of people detained at Guantanamo. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You say: "This page could just as easily have appeared on Wikileaks" So we decide what to include into Wikipedia based on what could or could not appear on Wikileaks? It would be helpful if you could provide policy based arguments and counter arguments as otherwise your !vote might be discounted. IQinn (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guantanamo is notoriously notable and so are the residents of Guantanamo (as is everything else associated with Guantanamo). They are the most famous detainees in the world. Definitely a keep. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 03:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No offence but i think "They are the most famous detainees in the world." Is not a policy based argument. We have almost a thousand articles on Guantanamo and the detainees there. So it would be helpful if you could explain why you think that "the article we discuss here" is notable and you might also provide counter arguments to the strong reasons for deletion that are given and based on policy. IQinn (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the given arguments of the nominator. Fails WP:N. IQinn (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Brewcrewer. Anotherclown (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ugh, yet more of this detainee mess to clean up? A sloppy, WP:OR-heavy treatment of a trivial topic; many of the names on that list would probably be eligible for individual AfDs as well. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Five Creeks[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:CLUB at all. All references except one in the article are from minor publications, and by the articles own admission, it's biggest claim to fame is "The organization has daylighted and restored a portion of the creek along the parking lot of El Cerrito Plaza Shopping Center.[4] Further down stream part of the creek runs through Pacific East Mall's parking lot." Additionally all of the clubs parent and affiliate organizations are redlinked. I would prefer to preserve the information by merging it to the Cerrito Creek article, which already makes mention of organization. But otherwise, just delete, based on the consensus.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Many of references in the article are from blogs, listings, announcements on local event calendars, or even Friend of the Five Creeks own website, but the article only contains one reference (from the San Fransisco Chronicle) in which Friends of the Five Creeks was the main topic of a published work. It is unlikely that this article (at this point in time) will be able to find more articles about itself, since it only gets 18 google hits, most of which are at 101010berkeley.org. But above all, The article doesnt assert that it has done anything notable.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article clearly meets the general notability guideline. The nominator suggested deletion hastily the moment the article was created and did not allow any time for expansion and an initial draft. The nominator has not tried to help make any improvements. Daylighting and the locations thereof are not the article's claim to fame. Its sourced material on being a prominent charity organization as stated in numerous appearances in the San Francisco Chronicle and Berkeley Daily Planet are what make it notable, its fame is irrelevant but its notability is established as per wikipedia guidelines. Redlinks are entirely a non sequitor here, as those articles or lack therof is not what is up for consideration, and furthermore not all are redlinked, Citizens for Eastshore Parks stands out. The information should not be merged with Cerrito Creek because the article is not about Cerrito Creek and information on the other creeks, parks, and the organization's history would not make sense in an article about Cerrito Creek.Thisbites (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC) (NOTE: Thisbites is the author and a principal editor of the article.)[reply]

Keep It is an exaggeration to say this article does not meet CLUB "at all", a moment of searching finds a reference by the European Social Ecology Institute which immediately makes this an unclear case as that is hardly a local publication, it is international. There seems every prospect of further national and possibly international sources being added in the near future. Before this AfD was raised I recommended on the article talk page that a merge discussion might be suitable, I certainly would agree that if an article on the parent organization existed this might be a possible merge candidate. The article was created 4 days ago and unfortunately by failing to engage in the current article talk page discussion about possible merge options and giving potential consensus a chance, the nominator has failed to follow the WP:BEFORE guidelines (points 4,5,6 and 10); disappointing for someone who made a point of saying that they were an admin in the article talk page discussion. I am not an admin and I understand that it happens to be irrelevant here as my opinion has no more weight in this discussion than anyone else's and should be judged on its merit rather than my status. Fæ (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick visit to the talk page will show I hav not violated WP:BEFORE (which is not a policy by the way, just a shortcut to a helpful list). Let's talk about the aticles and not each other.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, you clearly did not follow those steps. Furthermore you are not engaging in any discussion whatsoever. This article meets the GNG.Thisbites (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "guidelines" to describe BEFORE not "policy", these are an established consensus of the steps you should take in order to avoid the nomination being labelled "spurious or thoughtless" (as quoted from BEFORE). The start of BEFORE points to the policy WP:ATD which it is directly based on. Sticking to the article as suggested, I have already pointed out that a merge discussion was on-going on the article talk page, it is quite clear that an AfD should not be raised whilst there is the possiblity of a consensus being reached for a merge. My opinion in this AfD will remain Keep rather than Merge as the existing merge discussion is sufficient and it seems rather pointless to duplicate it and clearly against policy (WP:ATD) to delete this page whilst there is a prospect of a merge. Fæ (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, as per your advice I have visited the article talk page and associated change history. My reading of events is that you PRODded the article before discussing any potential merge. I am unclear exactly how this demonstrates your application of the BEFORE guidelines. Fæ (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have struck my comments from this discussion as the nomination has been tampered with in this edit, made after my opinion was added which is a blatant failure to meet the WP:REDACT guidelines. After discussion with the nominator on their talk page and mine, they believe that AfD pages are not talk pages and need not comply with this policy. If these edits remain in place, changing the basis of the nomination after three people have already expressed their opinions and discussed detail then I consider this AfD invalidated and ask for an administrator to close this deletion nomination on that basis. Fæ (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the user Fæ is apparently upset that I added the number of ghits for the Friends of Five Creeks. I failed to include it originally, although that's pretty common at AfD. I've never heard of anyone cancelling an AfD for that reason.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 06:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a rationale in the nomination (rather than adding later newly dated notes in the discussion thread) it makes it appear as if previous opinions expressed were in response to the new nomination, thereby falsely representing the opinions given. Though anyone is free to revise their opinion, changes should be dated and (preferably) explained. The changes you have made are not minor corrections to typos, they are controversial as they materially change the rationale of the nomination. I have not seen an AfD cancelled on this basis before, but then, I have not seen this type of retrospective substantive change to the nomination before. It is treated as a serious issue and I have seen people blocked for persistently failing to comply with WP:REDACT. Fæ (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in either the original nomination or the subsequent amendment to that nomination is cause for invalidating the AFD. If circumstances change during the nomination - the article is moved to another title, a similar article is added as a co-nom, or whatever - a comment noting the fact is sufficient to indicate that posts before that comment did not take it into account. Your post here noting the change to the nomination is sufficient for this purpose - it is clear to any admin reviewing this AFD that edits before 22:59, 28 January 2011 did not take the amended nomination into account. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that everyone expressing an opinion here (save for the nominator and myself) has moved to Keep the article - you really think it's worthwhile to start the AFD over? Might be simpler just to let it be. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 00:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Material facts were added to the original nomination making it appear to pre-date comments made in response by other editors. My observation would have been expressed differently had I been responding to the changed version rather than the original, that is why I have struck out my observations until the nomination is restored. I doubt the outcome of this AfD would be different either way but that does not make the redactions by Esprit15d acceptable and the behavioural guidelines are clear as to the limits of what would be acceptable. Fæ (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary, your comments very clearly do not reference the current version of the nomination - you just said so. Given that the original nomination is in the history (here), the reviewing admin (or whomever) can easily tell what you were referring to - and thus your comments are easily read in context. Hell, when I close an AFD, I sometimes read through the diffs to see the flow of the debate - and, thus, the revised nom wouldn't even matter since it would occur chronologically. You're obviously upset about this, but your position is clear - and will be given its due merit when the closing admin takes a look at this debate. If you have further concerns about the validity of this AFD, your proper venue will likely be the AFD talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than upset, I'm more taken aback by finding two sysops who believe that WP:REDACT does not apply to AfDs as any confusion can be worked around. This runs counter to my understanding of AfDs and my intuition. I'll consider taking it up longer term at a WT page as you suggest in order to make the behavioural guideline unambiguous and explicit for AfDs if that is required for it to apply here. Fæ (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To end this issue that is unrelated to the topic of this article's notability and discouraging all parties involved, I reverted my changes, and added an additional, timestamped comment (about the ghits) that is more clearly written.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per Ultraexactzz's suggestion, the general issue has been raised for comment at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Interpreting_WP:TALK_for_deletion_discussions. Fæ (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has multiple sources, meets notability guidelines. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the Berkeley Daily Planet and San Francisco Chronicle are not minor publications, most of the references mention the topic, a pair are simply there to provide supporting information, but that does imply that the rest of the references and coverage does not reflect the subject. Furthermore most of the references have nothing to do with the 101010berkelry.org website, I have never eve heard of it. And lastly there are two red links, only one of which is for an organization at this time.Thisbites (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of coverage found at Google News [10], but you have to look under "Friends of Five Creeks" instead of "Friends of the Five Creeks" as this article title has it. ("Friends of the Five Creeks" returns nothing at all at Google News.) The group's website also says "Friends of Five Creeks", so I suggest the article be renamed to Friends of Five Creeks if kept. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect for your participation, 71 hits is not a lot (1,827 would be a lot) and, again, most of it is from that same berkeley local periodical.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I was talking about Google News, not Google. Google News hits do not run into the hundreds of thousands as Google hits do, and 71 IS a lot. It would not be impressive if they were all from the Berkeley Daily Planet, but there are also items from the San Francisco Chronicle [11] [12], the Oakland Tribune [13] [14], and other regional papers. This adds up to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There, I just added several of these links to the article. In the process I learned that this is no trivial group. They have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, and they organize 40 or more work parties each year. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esprit15d, you did it again! You originally said that an impressive number of hits would be 827,000, but after I pointed out that Google News searches do not provide hundreds of thousands of hits, you went back and changed the number to 1,827 - making my comment look pointless or even stupid. You really shouldn't go back and change things you said after people have reacted to them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO I DID NOT! Look in the history here. And you will see I made my edits 8minutes before you sent yours, and actually we are editing over top of each other, becasue I am getting edit notices. That said. Just to clarify, I was fully aware you referring to Google News and that the San Fransisco Chronicle was one of the sources. That said, many notable (though regional) organizations can get coverage from more sources (eg. Heal the Bay (2,760) or Save Our Shore (810)) and from a wider pool (regional, state or even national sources). It's not just about hits, although that is useful. It's that Friends of Five Creeks (at this point in time) has not had that reach, and has not done anything especially notable that I've come across in its WP article or in the few other sources I've read. This is not personal for me at all, and I love environmental organizations of all stripes and sizes, but I don't see how this particular one meets WP:GNG or WP:CLUB.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my comment in response to your original number, but when I went to submit it, it was refused due to an edit conflict (apparently that was you, changing the number). I copied my comments and immediately submitted them again, as most people would (rather than rereading the entire article to see if something has changed). Basically I just think you should not change something substantively once you have posted it - someone may be in the process of responding, as I was. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing administrator please note, the article has now been moved to "Friends of Five Creeks" over a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to comment on Esprit15d's reference to the number of Google hits as being a reason to delete the article: In the first place, the number of Google hits is not a valid criterion; in fact it is listed under WP:GOOGLE as an "argument to avoid in deletion discussions". In the second place, the organization gets 39,900 hits [15] - not "only 18". --MelanieN (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Clearly I was in error. — Timneu22 · talk 14:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted (2011 film)[edit]

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

No third-party coverage. Only link is to the "official" Facebook fan page. — Timneu22 · talk 14:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quick Google search finds plenty of coverage - I've added two independent sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per ghits.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it is India's first stereoscopic 3D film that is probably notable enough in itself. Granted that there is a danger in admitting films that nobody has seen and may not even have been made, but this one is due for release in April. Unless there is to be a ban on Hollywood pre-release articles I think it has to be let in. Granted, it needs cleaning up and objectivity. AJHingston (talk) 14:42, 28 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. —SpacemanSpiff 17:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony Cultural Festival[edit]

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

The article was deleted as a result of a PROD, the reason given being "Non notable festival". (At that time the article had the title Symphony - Cultural Festival (KJSCE)). I restored the article in response to a request on my talk page, in order for the person making the request to "establish a better article for my college festival". However, the editor has not edited the article since then, and there is still no evidence of notability. In most cases a college festival is of interest to people connected with the college, but not to outsiders, and no evidence has been given to indicate that this case is an exception. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 14:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 14:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think we even have an article on the college let alone the school of engineering to even propose a merge.Thisbites (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most school events are non-notable and nothing in the article suggests this is any exception. Indeed, there's no actual content at all. JamesBWatson, it may have been better to have the author produce some sources or an outline of what the article might look like rather than blindly restoring it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tended in the past to be fairly generous in allowing late challenges to PRODs, restoring articles fairly freely. However, I have been reconsidering this matter, and I think in future I will be more strict about the procedure, and in cases which might be considered doubtful refer users to Requests for undeletion instead. As for "there's no actual content at all", there was some content at the time of deletion and undeletion which has since been removed. Certainly if the article had been as minimal as it is now I wouldn't have even considered undeleting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, doesn't seem very notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'll R3 the redirect. T. Canens (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy\Send Them[edit]

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

The article title is clearly wrong, but this AfD is primarily about the single itself, which doesn't seem to warrant its own page. There is no significant coverage of its own that shows it warrants a page outside of the album. — Timneu22 · talk 13:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest if you vote "keep", you suggest the proper title for this. — Timneu22 · talk 14:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Difficult. I'd suggest that the article should only be about Entropy, and be called Entropy (DJ Shadow song), since that's the one I'm finding sources on. If it were to stay as both, the slash should be the other way. Worm 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gnews has quite a bit of coverage, when searched properly here or here. In fact, this article by NY Times calls Entropy "the first defining moment in [DJ Shadow's] work." Could probably do with a little more work and possibly a move, but I'd say it's notable. Disclosure: I am adopter of the creator of this article Worm 14:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NSONG. Little evidence of independent notability. No chart positions, appearances in major movies, few (if any) independent reviews)--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are sources in major mediaThisbites (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys- thanks for the great suggested links, which I will be looking into! I'm going to do some more updates over the weekend, and I think given DJ Shadow's reputation that this aricle might just qualify as notable. If not, I'll add it to the Solesides Greatest Bumps article. Let me know what's would be the RIGHT THING (title has been updated and a redirect added!)Bennydigital (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Only 400 cassettes and 200 12" vinyl singles were originally pressed up and sold on consignment in record stores in the Bay Area" - that's notable? Give it a mention in whoever's article it belongs in. Peridon (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall endeavour to cover it's subsequent bootleggery and inclusion on several retrospective (and sought after) collections!Bennydigital (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that I have added enough to keep this, and will be including more information as to why it is notable, retrospective critical acclaim etc as and when I have the time and unrestricted internet access! Disclosure- I am the author of this article, but I'm unsure as to whether or not I'm permitted to vote on this... Just wipe the keep if I'm out of line! Bennydigital (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are quite entitled to both !vote (once) and comment as often as you wish. This isn't a kangaroo court. We don't want to delete something worth keeping, and changing of !vote is not unusual as things progress. The NYT reference looks good about the DJ, but is fairly brief on this disc. The other refs are lists or subject-connected. The referencing looks a bit biased towards DJ Shadow, as well, while the record has Asia Born on the other side. The problem with suggesting a merge would be what to do with this - you can't redirect to two places. It could be kept as a disam page linking both performers, though. I think it needs more coverage on the record to show it as a notable entity. I'm usually sceptical about with people known as DJ something (I'm waiting for DJ Lil BSE to appear some day...), but this one does seem notable. But this record? Peridon (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What to do? I think this Entropy\Send Them clearly needs to be deleted now that it's a redirect to a more appropriate title. So is this AfD about the new title? If so, are we debating this title? If not, what to do? — Timneu22 · talk 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the rationale is "... this AfD is primarily about the single itself ...", I assume that the AFD is now regarding the updated title. At least that issue is no longer a problem. I'm not sure you can withdraw your nomination as there have been other delete votes so it's probably best to let it run it's course. Worm 13:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well the article in question is still questionable even after recent changes, so I guess that's right. If this remains a keeper, I think I'll do db-r3 on this redirect. Certainly an implausible typo. — Timneu22 · talk 15:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Refs demonstrate notability. Needs renaming. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erode Metropolitan Area[edit]

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

No such geographical or administrative entity exists. The article's contents are pure fantasy. The article creator has falsified information for promoting his home town before. He is now currently blocked for pov pushing and introducing false information. He usually adds false data about Erode's population and geographical spread, but now has gone a step beyond to create a whole new administrative entity out of his imagination. The Prod was contested by an IP (whom i suspect is the author) without any rationale. Sodabottle (talk) 12:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Sodabottle (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But according to the article, Erode is a conurbation including two agglomerations, and has its own nodal agency. There must be something notable about that, right? Just kidding. Delete Delete Delete Delete EEng (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erode is a single city/UA and the city is administered by Erode Municipal Corporation. Both have articles on their own. What the creator tries to do is, merge the neigbouring cities like Bhavani, Tamil Nadu and other parts of the Erode District into the city and create a whole new entity. Earlier he simply used to add them to the Erode article and claim, the city has grown. Once blocked and reverted, he has switched to creating a new administrative/geographical entity with a slightly different name.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This metro exists only on Wikipedia because we have one disruptive user who keeps introducing factual inaccuracies regarding his hometown across many many articles. —SpacemanSpiff 13:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe we can merge it to anode or cathode, mother lode or B road? EEng (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty funny. When this started showing up my watchlist, I thought it might really be a Tamil place. I wonder what people have to gain from creating fictitious places. This is a new meaning to "castles in the air." Zuggernaut (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the infobox at Erode has a metro entry. Is that accurate? Zuggernaut (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a metro, then i am the king of Tamil Nadu :-). Thanks for the catch, i have modified the infobox--Sodabottle (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Imaginary metropolitan area/city. A quick google search as of now shows only wikipedia (this article) with the exact result. The article seems to be a promotion by the author. Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 14:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:SNOW.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'comment there is a metropolitan area that surrounds Erode even if it is not official, and even if this article is poorly formatted.Thisbites (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Erode urban agglomeration and there are other towns/cities. There is no "metropolitan area". And it certainly does not include Bhavani, Tamil Nadu. It is a separate city. Even unofficially (i live 70km from Erode) no one calls it a single entity.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:28, 28 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. Jujutacular ^talk 19:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G.w. blackly house[edit]

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

Page on a house. Claims some minor notability, however the only web source provided is a Facebook page. Smells a bit like this is a page that someone created about the house he/she lives in. Travelbird (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the as yet redlinked National Register of Historic Places listings in Bristol, Tennessee (as per the other such pages as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places). Otherwise delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esprit15d (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This not a house that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, nor does the article make that claim so a merge is out of the question as the target doesn't exist and this house wouldn't belong on such a list anyways. See for your self by searching the NRHP database for Bristol, Tennessee. The article provides three offline references. The assertion is that it has been placed on the Bristol Register of Historic Places which would indicate some local importance. However, this is not backed up with reliable sources. The third reference is a book which can be previewed on Google Books. The reference provides no page number. A search in the book fails to find teh indicated house. However, I was able to find mention of a George W. Blackley in the book, but still find no information about his house. The Bristiol Historical Association's site has a list of landmarks. There is no listing for a Blackly house, or a Blackley house, but there is a house that was bought by a Mr. Mr. Blakely (203 Solar Street). But the facts listed there do not match with those in the Wikipedia article so it is probably not the same place. A merge to Bristol, Tennessee would be workable if there were verifiable sources available, but the ones offered aren't helpful. - Whpq (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The house is mentioned in the book (page 138). It doesn't appear to be in the NRHP in either the weekly lists or pending for 2010 - there is a record for a historic district nearby[16] but the house, and the street, are not included - maybe there is a local register of historic places. The Bristol Historical Association mentions a George Blackley (possibly the same person), but not the house.[17] Peter E. James (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks for locating the page number from the book. It does confirm that the house is one of the oldest in Bristol. If there is confirmation that Bristol has officially designated it an historic place, a merge to the Bristol article would be appropriate but as of right now, I've not been able to find such a document. -- Whpq (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The name of the house is misspelled. Per this book, it should be George W. Blackley House if kept. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded the article with information I found online from the book mentioned above. The book even has a photo of the house, similar to the one in the article. As noted, the name of the builder is misspelled, and there are other issues with the article, but this looks like a newbie's first contribution, and those things can be fixed. I think it is likely that other sources will turn up. I've deleted the facebook link and fixed the spelling within the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listing on the National Register is deemed to an indicator of notability (largely because it means someone documented the property and determined that it has "significance"), but that does not mean that old buildings NOT listed on the Register can't also be notable. This one seems to be notable -- it is documented in that book, it supposedly is listed on the Bristol register, and it is documented to be one of the oldest houses in the city. --Orlady (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources Orlady found. Coverage would appear to be in-depth enough from at least two of those sources to justify retention under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 17:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramprapanna Bhattacharya[edit]

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

--Poet009 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 14:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The RS coverage only amounts to program listings and single line mentions--Sodabottle (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, as non-notable artist. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Eyed Jack (Video Game)[edit]

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

Speedy tag removed, thus listed here. Article on a NN game created by article author. WP:MADEUP Travelbird (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as spam, or just delete. This isn't going anywhere. Hairhorn (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author as creator who unilaterally removed speedy delete tag reveals all. Acabashi (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:36, 28 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) 02:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Smith (writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sam Smith (writer) (2nd nomination)

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

Nothing found notable in the article though the result of 1st afd was keep but the voting was not unanimous.Non notable writer with no major 3rd person reviews and no important awards.The books too have not come out to be bestsellers as such.Hence due to non notability the article should be considered properly for deletion.

Delete unlikely an author with such obscure work would be the subject of the requisite substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. "BeWrite Books" isn't a vanity publisher, but they are a very small POD house as far as I can tell. The fact that the article has gone entirely unimproved in the past 6 years suggests that fixing it likely isn't possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails notability.Has been associated with no major works to make him notable.--Poet009 (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Here's the original AfD, btw [18] As you can see, it was hardly a ringing endorsement for keep. Qworty (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:AUTHOR, simply due to lack of notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Trope[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1st AFD was in 2004 which predictably ignored the only solid point, the book has a few reviews but is not significantly notable to be considered an important work which would suggest the author is notable, almost no reliable sources for the author herself exist other than entries in book directories.neon white talk 10:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete author of one book, which is real and not vanity-press or POD, and thus more notable than the bulk of supposed "authors" who show up at AFD, but still not notable enough for an article. An article on the book might be possible though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 22:44, 29 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) 02:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Achalu[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:SCHOLAR. Appears to be founder of non-notable centre. Worm 10:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:BIO as well. nothing in gnews [19] and 1 gscholar hit. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2001[edit]

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

We don't need this – it's not notable. No other year-end record chart is listed entirely on Wikipedia. I have created List of year-end number-one singles (New Zealand), which should be a suitable replacement. The following would also need deleting:

Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the top accumulates sales/play over a year is actually more significant than weeks spent at #1. Remember, WP:NOTPAPER and the absence of articles for other countries may reflect a lack of sources or a lack of human resources. Since there's not much value in inter-year comparisons, I would say that List of year-end number-one singles (New Zealand) is the pointless article. dramatic (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't locate the template for linking to previous deletion discussions, but all these pages have been nominated and kept previously. dramatic (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nomination is based entirely on I DON'T LIKE IT and OTHER STUFF DOESN'T EXIST grounds. New Zealand is an English-speaking country, it has record charts, ergo this is appropriate and notable, regardless of whether or not it is "needed" or whether there are or are not similar lists for other countries. Carrite (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found other similar articles, making your point not valid: Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2001, etc, List of Top 25 singles for 2001 in Australia. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:34, 31 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} 02:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Moross[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Not a single one of the references is a reliable independent source, and some of them do not even mention Moross. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Evidence of notability:

1. General coverage:

Creative Review - yes this is blog but scroll down and included is a profile from the January issue of the magazine - here's the link to the article from the magazine - only available online to subscribers but you can probably find a copy in your local library

Creative Review - staff blog on her Topshop range

3news.co.nz

WWD

The Independent - "young guns such as the 24-year-old wunderkind Kate Moross, who has already produced her own capsule collection for Topshop"

Vogue - "the exhibit features 23 portraits of the young creatives making the London scene so impossibly vibrant, all by photographer Neil Bedford and artist Kate Moross"

Vogue

DigitalArts

Tate Gallery - confirms "campaigns for Sony and Cadburys, her own line at TopShop and has even started her own record label"

interview on New Zealand music TV channel C4

2. Her work on record sleeves/music:

CMJ New Music Monthly

Belfast Telegraph - light show for Mystery Jets - "there will also be light art commissions by legendary illustrator and in-house art director at ISO Kate Moross"

Clash magazine

3. Her work in automobile design:

Motor Daily

Carpages

Marketing

As I indicated when I deprodded the article, coverage was found. Many of these are brief mentions, but there is enough there to support an article. I haven't had time to add it as I've been dealing with 20 or so other articles which were inappropriately prodded. It would be helpful to search for coverage before bringing an article to AFD per WP:BEFORE. Your statement that "Not a single one of the references is a reliable independent source" is also incorrect - this includes a scan from NME which is a reliable source and may also be available in your local library. This is from the digital edition of Dazed & Confused - also a reliable source. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE. The NME reference really clinches it for me... the link is just to a blog but it does have a scan of the actual magazine page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More Evidence of notability:

1. Judging & Panels

Swatch MTV Playground -

Dazed Digital - London-based graphic designer, Kate Moross will be joining the Swatch MTV Playground panel of judges. One of the best known graphic artists today, Moross has an impressive background of having worked for some of the biggest names in the music, fashion and design industries today

2.Fashion & Design

3.Charity Work

Shelter Charity Website

Design Week Illustrator Kate Moross has directed the creative work for fundraising event Tied Together, run by sportswear brand Nike to support its Aids awareness programme Nike (Red).

4.Music & Art Articles

Eye Magazine

Wallpaper Magazine As a shape artist, Moross has produced graphic designs for Glastonbury, The Klaxons, and Marc Ronson’s label Allido Records. However, she is no stranger to fashion, dabbling in designing a clothing range for Topshop in S/S 08.

Computer Arts

Dazed Digital

More coverage found. Original article needs updating—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.133.158 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afzal Ahmad[edit]

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

No evidence of passing WP:ACADEMIC. The only references given are a deadlink and a directory listing, which establishes existence but nothing more. Very little found on searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Medical practitioner as stated here http://www.healthgrades.com/directory_search/physician/profiles/dr-md-reports/dr-afzal-ahmad-md-06eebd8d but does not mention any academic activities soever. Mootros (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant person; no notability; no academic achievements Ramansoz (talk) raman 03:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Argh, not a wiki article! Hashemi1971 (talk) Hashemi1971 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of county roads in Pinellas County, Florida. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McMullen-Booth Road[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:USRD/NT. Suggest merger into List of county roads in Pinellas County, Florida. Imzadi 1979 → 06:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - Contested prod, this is a non-notable county road that fails the U.S. Roads Notability guidelines as a standalone article. Merge into List of county roads in Pinellas County, Florida --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Per nom. Dough 48 72 00:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Ummakynes (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Admrboltz (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 611 (Pinellas County, Florida) is the exact same road. For consistency on the rule, its article should also be deleted, or at least redirected to the List of County Roads article. Umma Kynes 03:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummakynes (talk • contribs)
- Ummakynes - Both CR 611 and McMullen-Booth Road are nom'ed in this AfD. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, not sufficiently notable for a seperate article. Polyamorph (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricio Mattos[edit]

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

The subject of the article lacks notability. The article has been speedy deleted multiple times because of A7. If the ultimate decision is to delete the article, then I would request salt as well. Thanks Shovon (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom JDDJS (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:39, 28 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) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty Saga[edit]

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

No indication that this browser game is notable. Step hen 03:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice I will improve this article. Thank you. Crypt maker 12:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC +8)

New parts have been added I will keep up my work. Crypt maker 17:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC +8)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no evidence of suitable coverage in reliable sources required to demonstrate notability. Most MMOGs will not gain enough relevant coverage for WP articles, unfortunately, since the gaming press has little interest in investing the time in them. Someone another 14:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But sir or Madam, if you use google, you could find a lot of links that are related to this game. and if you type chinse 傲視天地 you could get more, cause this web game is so hot in china's web game market, which are operated by a lot of companies, including Renren baidu. shandang, koramgame and more . Yaowan.com has opened 137 servers. It's really hot. this english game was introduced by Koram since last 3 months it is still young to english people but that does not mean it is a nobody, this well designed game has been purchased by 3 major web game companies and reskined as: Dynasty Saga batheo, war flow. you could find that a lot players are playing them on facebook one of the largetest SNS in the US. Game press write a lot of articles related to this game. And playing strategy discussion could alos been found. Can you imagine a web game doing advertisement on TV in china? no other game has ever made this.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptmaker (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD G11 -- Y not? 05:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Learning House, Inc.[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest that this company meets the notability requirements. The awards are local only, and the tone is overly promotional. Step hen 03:32, 28 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. NW (Talk) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Park Street Advisors[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest that this company meets the notability requirements. Step hen 03:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability; no sources other than company web pages. PhGustaf (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure unadulterated WP:SPAM. I'm surprised they didn't include a PayPal link. Qworty (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (again) and salt/ ~~I've tagged for speedy as repost -- sorry, I don't know how to find the old deletion discussions, but this is at least the 2nd if not 3rd time it's been posted and deleted.~~ 12:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. "Speedy repost" is for articles previously deleted per deletion discussion, not per speedy. I guess we need a deletion discussion (i.e. right here) to get this salted. So I've removed the speedy tag. EEng (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt after this creates the public precedent we need to speedily delete any attempt at recreating this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as above. Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen purer spam, but this has 'written by' through and through, just like a stick of rock. No references given, just company links. If this has previously been repeatedly created, salt as well. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 31 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) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mythopolis[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest that this browser game meets the notability requirements. Step hen 03:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Stephen, Thank you for your notice and I will improve them. Crypt maker 13:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC +8)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguably a speedy delete, as it's web content (or a sort) that completely fails to assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 29 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 delete under criteria A7. Marasmusine (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NiGHTS 15th Anniversary[edit]

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

This is not even an encyclopedia article. This is merely a notice about a fan petition campaign about resurrecting a video game character. This is more or less an attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host or garner search engine coverage. –MuZemike 01:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 01:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete per nom (above) or redirect to the game itself. --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 04:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - would have preferred a prod. --Teancum (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was PRODded (and contested), hence why we're here :) –MuZemike 17:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I missed that since there was nothing in the edit summary. --Teancum (talk)

Delete - How is a fan campaign in any way notable? Should have been an easy A7 speedy candidate. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 and A7. --Dorsal Axe 17:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as web content with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Agree with Starblind. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per nom. Krashlandon ^(talk) 21:33, 31 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) 01:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Page[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate, fails WP:BIO; BLP issues. I can't find sufficient coverage of him in reliable sources to justify an article; he's got various mentions in passing, but virtually no direct coverage. Those few articles that do focus on him directly do so in a rather negative light, further suggesting this article should be deleted for WP:BLP reasons. Robofish (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. His sexual exploits are WP:UNDUE, and 'acrimonious' is the article author's unsourced WP:POV and/or WP:OR. Kudpung (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both not notable and in violation of BLP. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above. Krashlandon ^(talk) 04:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this man is clearly not notable per WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. --Lincolnite (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone, with added disgust that the WP:UNDUE details of his sex life have been part of the article since 2006 (!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I also note - User:Shakehandsman's edits to the article that focused on the attack content. Off2riorob (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've edited almost ever single section of the article expanding some significantly and therefore taking focus away from the offences if anything thank you very much. Also the content has been there for four years and I've simply changed it to reflect the actual offence rather than the previous vague term. Similarly I've detailed the fact that the offences occurred a long time ago which is also an important addition for any such controversial content. Whether the article needs deleting or not is one matter but it was more in need of deletion before my contributions. --Shakehandsman (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Reading East (UK Parliament constituency). Whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in an article like this, this is a clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:58, 29 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) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of karate styles[edit]

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

This article is high in original research and severly lacking in third person sources Dwanyewest (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion This would be better discussed on the article talk page rather than going direct to AFD. This article is a summary table: every entry has an article that is well-sourced. It would be valid to discuss if there should be a summary table but there is no question of original reseach, notability or reliable sources. I suggest that this AFD be withdrawn as premature. jmcw (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I see nothing current at this article's talk page, I'll make my comments here. Personally, I think this table is a good idea. However, if it's going to be a stand-alone article it needs its own sources. It just can't be assumed to be reliably sourced because the style articles are. Papaursa (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Use references from the underlying style articles. The article is source-able. jmcw (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Jmcw37. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree article is sourceable. Papaursa (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep comparison tables aren't necessarily unencyclopedic by definition, we have others for software. Someone will have to source all that, and while I don't envy the task I also doubt it's impossible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 29 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) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schmooze and Booze[edit]

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

A networking event at which a couple of hundred journalists attend a pub in an English city. Certainly not the size or scope of organization I'd expect to be considered notable; 3 of the sources are very weak (own website, a youtube interview, a podcast) and the more "reliable" sources look like trivial coverage (the Press Gazette articles). TheGrappler (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With all due respect to whoever created this Article, I'm pretty sure I am more notable than the Schmooze and Booze event, not as The Mysterious El Willstro that is but in my real name. I have no Wiki Article, of my own at least, so that is saying something. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article was never tagged for deletion so consider this the first week of discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was using Huggle to automate the nomination - any idea what went wrong here? In particular, why the ((subst:afd1)) didn't get put on the article? TheGrappler (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Certainly the meager coverage given in the references doesn't show it to be so. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically just a private party. I'm sure it's great fun, but we are an encyclopedia, not Myspace. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 28 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. The issue of renaming is an editorial one and can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Gorge casino[edit]

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

A proposed casino that doesn't even exist--violates WP:CRYSTAL. Qworty (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Rename: The rationale (CRYSTAL) has as its third sentence: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. This is clearly the case with this article. There has been considerable controversy over the proposal to build the casino, and so all sides of the debate have been well covered. —EncMstr (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I amend my opinion to rename the article to Columbia Gorge Casino controversy. The current article should become a redirect to the new name. —EncMstr (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then let's have an article called "Columbia Gorge Casino Controversy," rather than an article about a place that doesn't exist. Qworty (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very sensible suggestion. —EncMstr (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If renaming is opted for, I think something like "Proposed Columbia Gorge casino" is more neutral than "controversy." But again, I think the article should be kept as is. --Esprqii (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Rename Columbia Gorge Casino controversy per comments above. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, if a proposal is well-covered by reliable sources, it's acceptable. Novickas (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The key to WP:CRYSTAL is if the article is well-sourced, verifiable, and written neutrally, all of which this article meets. Not only that, it meets the notability is not temporary guideline of general notability. --Esprqii (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If moved, should be at Columbia Gorge casino controversy (lower case on the generic "casino"), as we don't know that its official name is the "Columbia Gorge Casino". Do we? Valfontis (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CRYSTAL is about Wikipedia editors speculating, as in I personally think Jesus is going to run for prez in 2012 and now I will go edit Wikipedia and add that tidbit. CRYSTAL does not keep RS from speculating, and we can then use those sources and their speculation, assuming it is relevant. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article covers over 10 years of history, which has include periods of planning, negotiation, lobbying, research, etc., in addition to controversy. I believe including the word "controversy" in the title would be inappropriate. I don't see a need to rename the article, but if others think so, I'd propose "casino in the Columbia Gorge" or "proposed casino in the Columbia Gorge" as more neutral titles. (note: for whatever it's worth, I'm the primary author of the article.) Pete (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over other proposed things, like Category:Proposed buildings and structures, Category:Proposed nuclear power stations, I don't see any with the word controversy in the title. I'd prefer "Cascade Locks Resort and Casino" as used by the Federal Register [20] but changing the name ought to be done at the article's talk page once this AFD is resolved. Novickas (talk) 00:20, 30 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 An American Tragedy. Jujutacular ^talk 19:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra Finchley[edit]

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

Nothing here that isn't in the novel that features this fictional character. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Then we can get rid of Category:An American Tragedy characters.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the novel, which appears to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to the novel, which is definitely notable. There may be sufficient literary criticism available for individual character articles, but until that is provided redirecting seems the best option. Edward321 (talk)
Merge all.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all due to inability to find much literary criticism to WP:verify notability. No prejudice against undoing the redirect once adequate sources are found. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:06, 29 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) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Thing Tour[edit]

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

This tour does not seem to demonstrate any inherent notability to warrant a separate article. There is no encyclopedic description in the text, just geography. No third-party references either. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only references are blogs, and there is no reasonable allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

King Atlas (Transformers)[edit]

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

A weakly sourced non notable character Dwanyewest (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculously minor character who apparently was never in the show at all and had only a tiny non-speaking appearance in the comics. Of all the Transformers that have showed up at AFD these past few months I think this may well be the least-notable of them all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there were less, some has no fictional appearance at all, like some of the new toys that haven't appeared in any story yet. This guy had two comic book appearances, and was scheduled to be a reoccuring character in the Universe comics before it was canceled, plus he was talk about somewhat in a third story, where they talked about how he disappeared. Mathewignash (talk) 03:07, 24 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) 00:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More Transformers cruft to sift through. Minor char, no reliable sources, yada yada... Tarc (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BAI (See #8)--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:09, 29 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 Geocaching. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geodashing[edit]

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

No reliable sources found, just one-sentence mentions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – There's coverage in multiple American newspapers, over several years. Most commonly it's within articles that also cover geocaching more extensively, but it's more than just brief mentions of geodashing. I've added several citations as examples. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per the comments of my fellow editors below. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into geocaching - that what all the sources are doing in any event. I agree that it exists, it looks like fun but I don't think there is significant coverage enough to allow it to pass the hurdle of WP:GNG. - ManicSpider (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree that it is best understood as a variant of Geocaching. The mechanics are the same, and from the perspective of a Wikipedia user (I wish they got more mention in these discussions) it is more likely to be useful and read about as part of that article. There is already a list there of variations, one of which is 'virtual' which encompasses Geodashing. AJHingston (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per ManicSpider.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per ManicSpider Copritch (talk) 05:47, 31 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) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Verra[edit]

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

Ma Petite Lumiere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These albums fail to meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG; there is little to be found on Google about the composer, even less so about her works. (For example, I looked through the searches and found only rfimusique which includes her but only mentions the album "On Verra" in passing.) :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 04:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCo NaSpVe :| 04:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jocelyne Labylle, per this google listing.

delete unreferenced unverified unknownThisbites (talk) 19:32, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agust Baldursson[edit]

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

Weakly referenced BLP with no indication of being covered substantially in secondary sources. brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has obviously done commercials for notable products. I asked a friedn who lives on Iceland if she had heard about this dude and she had,. That is enough for me to say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia has guidelines on notability. "Someone from Iceland has heard of them" is not one of them. Also, notability is not inherited. If you feel the subject is notable, please add reliable, independent sources to the article. Edward321 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even remotely notable per WP:RS and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to be very careful of cultural and linguistic bias. The point made above, that the person seems to be well known in Iceland, may be valid. Biography discussions seem to be dominated by fame measured by Googled references (irrespective of notability guidelines). In the creative field, particularly, very minor personalities can get into Wikipedia if active in the US, which has a population 1000 times that of Iceland, if measured by search engine references. Baldursson probably fails on strict notability rules - awards, etc - but he does have a reasonable CV (sorry, resume for some of you - an example of a culturally specific term). AJHingston (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then feel free to write him up at the Icelandic Wiki, if there is one. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Icelandic Wikipedia is active and well-developed with 30,000+ articles and 168 currently active editors (last 30 days). It has no article on this person that I could find. I checked both these spellings: w:is:Ágúst Baldursson or w:is:Agust Baldursson. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have simple guidelines on notability, and this person simply fails them; WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not on the Icelandic Wikipedia (see comment above). No substantive mentions in Google News' English archives. Just 44 hits on a Google (Iceland) web search. Only a passing mention in IMDb. Having said that, this guy works for very well-known ad agencies and it's quite possible he will get more coverage in the future, in which case we can produce a new article in the future. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article produced 2 other articles that were deleted: EGigs (deleted 5 times) and Mallard Productions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source it or lose it. We really can't take chances on a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:24, 28 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) 21:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chae hawk[edit]

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

WP:N? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources that show notability.Steve Dufour (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and threw up a few more sources, let me know if they work, also will have a few more up in a few weeks(Rhymestyle (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He actually does meet the WP:ENTERTAINER requirements considering he was invited to tour with Lady Gaga on her The Fame Ball Tour with The White Tie Affair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymestyle (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indepedant sourcedThisbites (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to know who actually monitors these pages sometimes, because I've noticed you guys really seem to not do your homework on some of these artists. Example, someone took down Cyhi Da Prynce's wiki and he's on a platinum selling album with Kanye West, and not only that, but he's also signed to Def Jam Records AND Kanye's GOOD MUSIC. Not trying to complain, but its frustrating deal with people on here sometimes, especially when all the requirements ARE covered. (Rhymestyle (talk) 04:11, 31 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. This article is certainly in need of improvement, and it may be possible to find sources to expand it into something a lot better than what it is now, but I do not see any clear consensus here on what to do with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greaser (derogatory)[edit]

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary by being just the history and definition of one word. Although the word "greaser" is probably more notable than some other ethnic slurs it is still just a word. The article also lacks good sources and is unclear on what the word means. Is it just Mexicans, all Hispanic people, Italians too, or any dark-haired young man who uses hair oil? The claim that it originates from Mexican people being hired to grease the axles of mule carts during the Mexican American War also seems a little out there to me. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this different from the other entries in List of ethnic slurs which have articles? Why don't you make this a group nomination for all the following dictionary definitions of derogatory terms or slurs, and see how far you get? See also Beaner, Celestial (Chinese), Chinaman (term), Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, Ching Chong , Chink, Cholo, Coolie, Coonass, Cracker (pejorative), Fuzzy-Wuzzy, Gringo, Gweilo, Guido (slang), Half-breed, Haole, Honky, Jap, Kaffir (racial term), Kike, Kraut, Limey, Nigger, Ocker, Pickaninny, Pikey, Polack, Redneck, Redskin (slang), Sambo (racial term), Shiksa, Spic, Squaw, Taig, Teuchter, Ugly American (epithet), West Brit, Wetback (slur), Wog, Wop, ~~Anchor baby,~~ and Fresh off the boat. Perhaps this term should be removed from Wikipedia (and perhaps transwikied to Wiktionary like Dago. Why is only this one definition or slur inappropriate for Wikipedia? Note that this is not the "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument for keeping this term, but rather a proposal to transwiki the lot to Wiktionary. "Wikipedia is not censored" does not trump "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." Edison (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with you. I have been nominating these articles one by one. However in some cases the expression is important enough so that an article is useful and interesting to the readers, for instance Jap. Also in some cases, like for instance anchor baby, the article is really about the concept not the word. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Struck Anchor baby per your comment. Edison (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need first is a "policy on policies" so that policies like "not a dictionary" are actually taken seriously. :-) Jaque Hammer (talk) 03:25, 25 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) 00:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to consist largely of WP:OR. I agree with the idea proposed from the last listing that most of these articles should go. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
move to wiktionary Wiktionary doesn't have this meaning. 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking on Google scholar, I find no difficulty in finding a good source which discusses this ethnic stereotype at length. The word appears in the title of US law and significant cultural works and there seems to be good scholarly work on this phenomenon. At worst, we'd merge with Anti-Mexican sentiment, Hispanophobia, Mexican Americans or one of the other numerous articles in this field. This is our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to Anti-Mexican sentiment. That way the article would be about the topic, not the meaning and use of a word. Jaque Hammer (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its used to be a pretty common term and is still used fairly often in areas like Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. Its also a term that refers to the guys in the 50's that used a lot of hair gel that gave their hair a greasy appearance (like the Fonz from happy days). --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard the American uses of the term, and have added the totally separate British English usage of the term to the article. This perhaps extends the article from a straight definition of one term. The boundary between definition and article is a tricky one to draw. Peridon (talk) 16:33, 31 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. No prejudice against undoing the redirect if the single charts after it is released and there are reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Know It Hurts[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album AB III CTJF83 chat 17:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is yet to be released but will be a notable single by a notable band from a notable album. It deserves its own page. The band's press/fan liaison confirmed that the song will be released worldwide with the exception of North America, but I'm not sure if that's an official source. If that's the case, we can delete the page until an official press release is released. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First the article has to obtain Notability then you create the article, that's how Wikipedia works. CTJF83 chat 03:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to album for now. Song is not notable at the moment. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete - No sources, seems to mostly speculation. (like it releasing when their last single loses popularity...) Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alter Bridge's press liaison confirmed this on www.thealterbridgenation.com Live Light (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not for advertisements of unreleased music. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this has been confirmed by Michael Tremonti, Mark Tremonti's brother and Alter Bridge's press/fan liaison. He posted it on the Alter Bridge Nation discussion board. This thread: http://thealterbridgenation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27817&st=0&sk=t&sd=a Live Light (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has that website confirmed that it will be a future hit? Because until that happens (or something else notable), it doesn't merit its own article.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal say "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." User comments on a discussion board don't give any certainty at all. As for notability, this song article is still indiscriminate info: even after the song is released, it has got to chart or have some other compelling reason to not be turned into a redirect to the band or album article. SteveStrummer (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is kind of horryfyingly OR, but regardless, if and when the single comes out, we can... well even then I would probably wait until it actually met WP:NSONG. Right now it certainly doesn't, and it's anyone's guess what the future will bring.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be confirmed as a single to the point that they have cover art for it, and when released will be unquestionably notable. I see no reason to delete this just to bring it back in 3 weeks or whatever. No objection to deletion if the single fails to come out in, say, 2 months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect rather than delete, in all other respects I agree with Andrew Lenahan above. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been confirmed as the new single: http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/i-know-it-hurts-single/id415239995 63.248.11.9 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Rising[edit]

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

Weak delete. Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC on the face of the article, but quite a few references to her or her works can be found by digging through this search. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet the notability criteria for wikipedia no matter how "notable" she may be in her own field. andy (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - changing !vote - notability established. andy (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internationally known author and lecturer in the field of patterns in application to software development and change processes. Meets also Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative professionals nr. 1. (The person is regarded as an important figure) - the proof being for example the invitations as keynote speaker. Remark: sufficient notability in a relevant field (like design patterns etc.) should normally indeed suffice for Wikipedia relevance as well. --Chris Howard (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep author who has published books in the academic press. The article should explain however the significance of her work. TFD (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patterns are a notable approach in software development and she seems to be a leading advocate and expert. I think the notability of highly technical experts should not depend on New York Times-like sources. She has been reviewed on the websites of Association for Computing Machinery and IEEE and that should be enough to establish notability here.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3 books published by Cambridge University Press = recognition as an authority in her subject. (2 additional ones at A-W help also). The article, however, is overly promotional, including such resumé-padding techniques as listing her doctoral thesis as a book, including a number of minor non-peer-reviewed publications among her articles, and including a number of miscellaneous lectures. I have removed them. DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn by nominator — Opened for community discussion; discussion has now satisfied my uncertainty about the article. Thanks to the community. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ged UK 11:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa League broadcasters[edit]

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

"List" containing only three times. In no way is this a "list". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may only contain three items currently, but quite clearly has potential for expansion as it only covers two countries out of the dozens where the Europa League is broadcast. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - broadcasters can and will change year-to-year, and there is no need for this basic content fork; however, it is worth a mention on 2009–10 UEFA Europa League, 2010–11 UEFA Europa League etc. Giant Snowman 16:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Phil Bridger.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep whilst the article has only a few entries now it presumably has potential to end up similar to List of UEFA Champions League broadcasters, which was perhaps the starting point of the article in the first place? Whilst the Europa League is subsidiary to the Champions League it still gets substantial media coverage. Broadcast rights will change over time, and it may subsequently be worth having a 'previous broadcasters' section for completeness. Eldumpo (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think we're into WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory here. In any case, TV rights for the competition, at least in the early rounds, are sold directly by the clubs involved to whatever broadcaster they see fit on a match-by-match basis e.g. [21]. This would make a comprehensive list nigh-on impossible to create. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless and stupid. Szzuk (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of country subdivisions by GDP (PPP)[edit]

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

Six items is hardly a "list". Information is 5 years out of date. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of the page is good, just the execution is missing. There probably is no "missing content" template in the 'pedia? --Sigmundur (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This is a very unsatisfactory article. It is (grossly) incomplete; it announces the list is for 2005 when two items state they are for 2008; the only reference is a broken link. The reference has been archived on Webcite however [22] but this shows it was only concerned with U.S. states. The article's creator and major contributor was User:SebastienPoncet who was blocked for sockpuppetry (on dubious evidence?). Now, I suspect none of these is an argument for deletion but the overall situation is so very poor that if anyone wants to improve this article it would best be created all over again. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but the this type of ranking is difficult original research. Plus, it's been done elsewhere, as noted by the comment immediately below. Mandsford 16:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An abandoned project. There are other related lists in Wikpedia eg List of country subdivisions by GDP (nominal), List of country subdivisions by GDP per capita (nominal). But they are highly problematic, and I am not convinced of the validity of comparing England (pop 51.6m) with Hamburg (pop 1.8m) for example, because they stand in quite different relationship to their countries and surrounding geography, and the lists are full of such extremes. I agree with Mandsford that anything worthwhile will probably be OR and therefore not for Wikipedia. AJHingston (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's just another way of comparing economic regions of the world that economists use. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My attention has been drawn to the classification system NUTS used in the European Union for comparing regions at different geographical levels, as an example of how trained economists do this. Care is taken to ensure that comparisons are made at the appropriate level. It would rarely be considered useful to compare Tokyo with England; the appropriate comparison would be with, say, Greater London. Without any agreed approach and definitions I don't see how any such list as here can be useful and it is liable to mislead. AJHingston (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can see its usefulness. If California goes bust. It is useful to be able to compare how California compares with the United Kingdom on a chart like this. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As AJ has pointed out, this project has been undertaken in the form of List of country subdivisions by GDP (nominal), and the fellow who originally started this article, Poncet, appears to have made further contributions to that list. The "it's been done" discovery is probably the best explanation as to why this one was abandoned. If someone wants to compare California to England, there's are two articles that supply useful information. This isn't either of them. Mandsford 02:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it has been abandoned. I think that it is complete. The method of calculating GDP is different as is explained in the introduction and the reason that the list is short is also explained in the introduction. I think that this list is useful to people who understand the difference between PPP and nominal GDP calculations. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 03:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone will agree. Mandsford 04:10, 31 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.