< 12 May	14 May >

Guide to deletion

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asen Georgiev[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has not played in a fully professional league.

Note: Don't be mislead by levski.bg stats which includes games when player was on bench for whole 90 minutes. Oleola (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 03:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Note that the Usual Caveats apply. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG, and he has not made his professional début meaning he fails WP:NSPORT also. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual... Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 05:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Small Wonders[edit]

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

Is this a hoax? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the original author seems to be overestimating the book's significance.--Azimuthoid (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) — Azimuthoid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Could you point me toward some reliable sources that verify this book's existence? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This guys mentions that it was made up for a test, 1, post #21 then #27. Nothing coming up on search to even suggest that it is real yet insignificant. If not speedied, then delete - frankieMR (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed even the sources offered seem hokey; the journals and book mentioned don't seem to have any existence beyond this article and the New York Times story can't be found in the archives of the NYT. Subject to change if anyone provides a source, but this looks rather definitely like a hoax, which would mean Delete FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax, per above, else delete per notability per the actual claim in the opening as being little known. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AGF, please! Azimuthoid has asserted the existence of the subject but not its notability. If Azimuthoid can supply reliably verifiable sources for the subject's existence (or even any effectively traceable sources for the article - without more bibliographic information, the current ones aren't traceable and so can't currently count as verifiable, let alone reliable), that could be useful information for this discussion. But even if Azimuthoid can't, it is still impolite to assume a hoax on hearsay evidence when the mere existence (as distinct from the verifiable existence and notability) of the subject gives absolutely no grounds for keeping the article. PWilkinson (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for assuming good faith, but when this book is not mentioned on Google at all, nor is it mentioned in any of the millions of books archived on Google Books, it becomes rather difficult to believe that it exists. It is not true that the cited sources are untraceable- the New York Times does have an online archive of articles, but it doesn't seem to have ever published the article that is cited. Parson's Publishing exists and has a web site, but the cited book does not appear in its catalog, and indeed it doesn't seem to publish literary analysis. There is no such journal as 'Henderson's Literary Review,' or 'New York Metaliterature Journal.' I am personally insulted by this reprimand, which accuses me of relying on 'assumption' and 'heresay evidence' when in fact I made a fairly thorough search trying to confirm the existence of this text, a search which you could easily have done for yourself before accusing me of failing to assume good faith. I invite you to apologize. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology accepted, although I question your motives since it is truly I who should be apologizing to you, and not vice versa. --Azimuthoid (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obvious a hoax. Google for any of the names of the references, and you'll find they don't exist. Delete also the copy of this article he has on his user page. [1]. He should also be banned. Only edits he ever made was for this hoax. Dream Focus 03:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A search on WorldCat for "the death of small wonders" returns 62 results, none of which is a book by that title. Delete as non-notable at best, hoax at worst. LadyofShalott 04:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Goran Zorić[edit]

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

There is insufficient coverage for Mr. Zorić to meet WP:GNG.His appearances in Australia are do not grant notability under WP:NSPORT, and I cannot verify whether he actually played in Thailand or not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the GNG from the sources I've found and I also can't find anything to verify that he has played in the Thai Premier League (though I'm certainly no expert at finding ref for Thai footballers). Aside from that, the teams he has played for in Australia are in fully professional leagues, so he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY. If someone can find a ref to verify that he played in the Thai Premier League I will be happy to reverse my !vote. Jenks24 (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seems to be no indication that he meets the GNG as far as I can tell. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thai media article [2], translated here [3]. WWGB (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, nice find, verifies that he was signed by Police United F.C.. Only problem is it doesn't actually say that he played a match for the senior team, which is what's required by NFOOTY. Jenks24 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shabdaguchha[edit]

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

Non notable magazine. This article and the (auto)biography of its editor are promoted by several single purpose accounts. Notability is not established via reliable sources. Ragib (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, several references are provided from NyNews52.com. On checking the site, I just noticed that the site/magazine's editor is also the spouse of Shabdaguccha's publisher (who is listed as the advisor to editor of NyNews52.) [4] So, this is totally useless as a reference to establish the magazine's notability. --Ragib (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —œ ^™ 12:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabdhaguchha is the first literary Web Magazine in Bengali Language. This Magazine has already been observed its 12+ years publications. I disagree with this User. Shabdaguchha has enough role in Bengali poetry and there are enough scope to develope this page as a standard one. There are several reliable sources other than NyNews52. This objection may be an intentional one or not impartial. so I need some other users who are not from Bangladesh or Bengali spoken.I believe these talks are bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronee (talk • contribs) 23:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, what "bias" do you see to preclude Bengali speakers? In fact, Bengali speaking Wikipedians are more suitable to opine on the non-notability of the magazine. :) --Ragib (talk)!~

ROFL! if you have 12+ publication history(!) then sachalayatan and somweherein both have millions of readers and they are nourishing Bengali literature and they need to be in Wikipedia before Sabdhaguchha. Some of the bloggers shall also have their name in Wiki.

You need(!) non-Bengali or non-Bangladeshi to opine on a matter that is in the scope of Bengali people? Ironically I've noticed many experienced editors to seek (and prefer) opinion from Bengali people on suitable regards. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morever, Three or more reference is deleted by these users. It's really indicates something intentional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auronee (talk • contribs) 23:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added a wikipedia article as a "reference". That is not. You added several yahoo group messages as well. Forum emails are not reference for anything. --Ragib (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alas! from when an Wikipedia article can be a reference? Wikipedia articles are best suited to be referred in see also section (if relevant). And Forum!? I think Auronee is not kidding with us. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 05:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A couple of mentions in the passing, and a number of self-references. Sorry, it doesn't meet WP:NOTE. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because:

– Very few knows about this claimed important Shabdaguchha and for Bengali Literature I did not find it to be a well-acclaimed work.

– Wikipedia accounts notability and notability of Sabdaguccha is not evident

– All related articles or mentioned text in Wikipedia are by few Single Purpose Editors

– All references are either Primary source or not reliable

no reason to keep this article in Wikipedia now. --নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh^{talk | contribs} 04:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and NafSadh. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per WP:N. This article seems to me an indirect self-promoting approach of the author himself. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 10:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree with the above; the coverage simply isn't there to justify an article at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn request. Favonian (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freaky Chakra (Movie)[edit]

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

The movie is not notable per WP:MOVIE and WP:GNG. I was only able to find one article reviewing the movie, and this does not meet the requirements of receiving significant coverage in order to be notable. The film is also not notable in any other way, as it has not received a major award, and is not historically notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find many articles covering this movie, unlike the nominator. And this movie was India's official entry for Reel World film festival, Toronto <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2003-02-11/news-interviews/27276536_1_toronto-festival-indian-film-festival-official-entry>. Here are a few articles on this movie, in India's prominent magazines : on

Hindu : <http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2003/01/27/stories/2003012700500100.htm>, Subash K Jha's article on rediff : <http://ia.rediff.com/movies/2003/feb/07freaky.htm>, Ronjita Kulkarni's article on rediff : <http://ia.rediff.com/movies/2003/feb/07freaky.htm>. Ofcourse this movie is notable as this was one of the very first films in the Indian English genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 11:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some sources do establish notability of this movie like the times of India article.--117.211.84.226 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. News coverage as mentioned above, plus inclusion in a number of books ([5], [6]) suggest that this film meets the guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am satisfied also with the coverage. Thanks Manorathan, thanks Bongo. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep per seeming lack of before on the part of the nominator, and WP:NF being easily shown to have been met.[7] The copyvio has been addressed (please see my re-written version SEEN HERE) and can be placed over the version that was tagged as copyvio, thus saving the combined histories. Boldness anyone?... as it seems best for the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Inks.LWC (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Bearing Corp[edit]

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

A non-notable company per WP:ORG. Wizard191 (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. No independent refs. Seems like company spam.--Dmol (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was nomination withdrawn. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Paise Ki Dhoop,Char Aane Ki Barish[edit]

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

The movie is not yet notable. WP:MOVIE states that films that but have not yet been publicly released usually shouldn't have their own articles unless the production itself is notable, which it is not. From my searches, the movie hasn't been reviewed by two or more nationally known critics, and it does not meet the other criteria in WP:MOVIE or WP:GNG Inks.LWC (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course this movie is notable as it is the first movie directed by Deepti Naval, one of the prominent actors in India of the Middle of the road film genre. This movie also has the most notable actors in the lead roles, Manisha Koirala, and Rajit Kapur, quite prominent in the theatre circuit, which is quite significant in their careers, given the very different kind of roles they have done in this movie, as seen in this article in Midday, [8]. And this movie is a landmark in the emerging trend of queer theme in Indian Cinema, with a person like Deepti Naval directing it, which was greatly appreciated in the LGBT mailing lists. The movie's release to the public is widely expected, as can be seen in the blogs, which I am not allowed to cite as per the neo-wikipedia policy. So this movie satisfies the clauses in the other evidences of notability in the said page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep references are independent and verifiable.--117.211.84.226 (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But how does it meet the notability requirements? Inks.LWC (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply When there is a significant coverage by many independent sources, ofcourse the subject is notable. How else can you define notability! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 07:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Movie not yet released, so not notable. However, reading the article, it seems likely that it will become notable on release. There is therefore an argument for allowing this article to remain and to let this play out. It can always be deleted later if the movie release doesn't happen or if it is a flop. HairyWombat 15:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that's not to the point. A movie that is not yet released can be very notable. Care to read Super 8 (film)? On the other hand, that the article reads as if the movie might become notable is an argument for deletion also--it can always be restored. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty notable per coverage in reliable sources--it's as simple as that. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF. And though awaiting commerical release... the film WAS publicly screened at the 62nd Cannes Film Festival and has received media attention and critical commentary because it HAS been completed and HAS been seen. Guideline requirements for film notability have been met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn Inks.LWC (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Peake[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, as I can only find a few unreviewed exhibitions. The only claims of notability on this page are that the subject is the descendent of notable people. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Trying to pass WP:ACADEMIC, since the subject teaches, also appears to fail. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Take out her ancestry and her teaching and there's nothing left.--Dmol (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that topic meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:PROF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a non-notable artist with notable ancestors; but the said ancestors have their own articles, and notability cannot be inherited, as the nominator says.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—As per nomination: falls short of the criteria of both WP:ARTIST and WP:ACADEMIC. Meph^talk 16:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for sources discussing Florence Peake herself beyond her ancestry and didn't find enough to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. appears to be a notable artist who just happens to have notable ancestors. She might fail to meet WP:PROF but that's because she's not an academic like an art historian who writes papers and books about art, but is a teacher who teaches art, so she's not going to have tonnes of papers on Google Scholar. That said, the teaching contributes some notability without being of overriding importance. What does contribute importance is the fact that she has had NUMEROUS, WP:CREATIVE exhibitions at various institutions, most notably the National Portrait Gallery, and the Slade School of Art. She has collaborated extenstively with other notable artists including Gaby Agis, Joe Moran, Mirranda Pennell, Kirstie Richardson, Nicola Conibere, Serena Korda, Robin Deacon and Gary Stevens, Katye Coe, Joe Moran, Polly Hudson and Sally Dean. THAT CONSTRIBUTES SOME MORE NOTABILITY. Furthermore, the ancestry is interesting in itself, as demonstrated by the Daily Mail article. If we just limit ourselves to direct line ancestors, her Mother, Fater, maternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, paternal grandfather, plus great-grandfather great-grandmother, great-great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather another reat-great-grandfather, great-great-great-grandfather, great-great-great-grandmother, great-great-great-great-grandfather, another great-great-great-great-grandfather, great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, another great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, and that's excluding uncles and cousins. That contributes some more notability. When you look at it like that and put your liberal idealism of only gaining notability through "achievements" aside. But she still meets WP:CREATIVE. (I also wouldn't count Hrafn's vote). Flying Fische (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am bewildered as to why requiring a subject to have their own reason for notability (rather than just having some connection with someone who has such a reason) constitutes "liberal idealism", but whether or not that is so, it is the currently accepted standard on Wikipedia. You are, of course, perfectly free to start a discussion to consider whether this standard should be changed, but this discussion will be closed by an administrator who will assess it on the basis of current practice, not on the basis of what you would prefer practice to be, so if you want the article kept you will be more likely to succeed if you give reasons why the subject satisfies current standards. "She has collaborated extenstively with other notable artists" falls under "notability is not inherited". You say "the teaching contributes some notability", can you explain why? Clearly not everyone who has ever taught is notable, so we need reasons why this particular teaching is special. The article does not mention the National Portrait Gallery exhibition: can you show that it has received significant mentions in reliable third party sources? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RS are insufficient for WP:ARTIST, WP:CREATIVE, WP:N, etc. User Flying Fische appears to be unaware of how WP notability works. Qworty (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a couple of lines to mum/dad. Not individually notable. Johnbod (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Using Flying Fische's reasoning, I would have my own article. At least two dozen of my ancestors have a Wikipedia article. So by extension, all my kids, my siblings, nieces and nephews, etc, are all notable for the same reason and deserving of an article. Hardly seems like a workable idea.--Dmol (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We evidently all recognize the irrelevance of the above arguments favoring famous ancestors and lots of teaching and collaboration. The only real source seems to be the Daily Mail article, but that is a rather trivial mention strictly on the basis of her being some n-th generation descendent (among many spotlighted in the article) of Chas Darwin. The WP article claims "Peake has exhibited a number of times", but honest searching only turns up trivial mentions in various obscure publications, like in the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning bulletin from this college: "...in particular, artists such as [long list of names], Florence Peake, [long list of names], to name but a small selection". This is an uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Really, this is one of those there's no need to discuss for a week. Courcelles 11:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria’s Genesis[edit]

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

Article is about an internet hoax. That a hoax occurred and got some internet traffic is not in doubt. But GNews indicates the hoax was never the subject of any reports, and even Snopes.com draws a blank. So, I call not notable. Scott Mac 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for Alexandria's Genesis shows this as the first result. All other results on the first page, and the majority of all results, perpetuate it as a truth. This page needs to remain here so that people are better informed of this hoax. The fact that no other respected sources make comment of it simply further reinforces this need. Dantai Amakiir 21:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, "need" is not a reason for keeping an article. We keep if it meets our estimation of notability. You need to show some evidence of that. The fact that there's so little traffic counts against that.--Scott Mac 22:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources that treat the hoax or even mention it (and of course there isn't any treating it as an actual condition). A large amount of unreliable sources does sometimes prejudice me towards keeping, but this one is not that large if you look closely, and the repetition of content (and lack-there-of) is consistent throughout the reports and it corresponds to the first stage of the hoax. No measure was reportedly sought or proposed against the "condition", and it seems to have vanished without hitting the mainstream media jackpot. The only reason I can think of (and it is most certainly not guideline based by any means) is that I feel it is a fair service to record and report the situation as a hoax (and I agree with Dantai Amakiir that the fact that no respected sources make comment reinforces the need for comment). The matter with doing that is not notability but verifiability, as there seems to be no pertinent authority denying it, so we have no one to quote, and it would mostly depend on how much of the fact that it is a hoax is actually a matter of fact. But even then an article would be too much. Is there a List of Internet Hoaxes or something for a redirect? - frankieMR (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This falls too far short of required notability. Sources mostly use the phrase when talking of the foundation of the city of Alexandria. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not-notable and nowhere near verifiable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Laptev[edit]

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

Article does not provide enough context or background that suffices WP:GNG, also he fails the academic specific guideline, all his background resumes to ONE:EVENT a university teacher whom had a major in another country, in a uncommon scientific field that was president of the euro mathematical society and was awarded by the Wolfson Research Institute. Also I should mention that notability is not inherited. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ahem, surely the article does? Mathsfreak (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Royal Society award would be enough to give notability. The maths society is borderline, but combined there's not doubt about notability. The article needs rewriting and references.--Dmol (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable. --bender235 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good GS cites in low cited field. President of European Mathematical Society. Nominator is advised to read WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Presidencies of Swedish and then European Maths Socs would seem to me to easily meet our WP:Prof requirments. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. As President of the European Mathematical Society and of the Swedish Mathematical Society, passes WP:PROF#C6. Nsk92 (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Nominator is requested to withdraw the nomination, rather than letting his error stand in this case. Ray^Talk 05:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. article notability assertion improved by addition of reliable and verifiable sources thus I've withdrawn this AfD. Passes WP:BIO (non-admin closure) Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad A'zam[edit]

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

Article looks like the subjects Curriculum Vitae filled with OR or HOAX statements, it does not cite any source correctly, however the main problem here it is the notability which cannot be established, a preliminary research only brought up local works and references, he is locally known, which does not provide a good context for his insertion on WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not placing a vote on this until someone with proficiency in Uzbek checks for reliable sources. It's very difficult to work out whether A'zam really is who the article says he is. If he's really been director of a national television station, he should be notable. I can't find anything in a language I can read on him, and Uzbek isn't google translatable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guys, first of all not all the parts of the world speak only English. Secondly not everything related to Uzbekistan is available on the internet. Internet penetration in Uzbekistan is around 17%, so figure out yourself. I did my best to add sources and some external websites, to change the tone but suggesting that the guy is not the one who he claims to be is ridiculous. Also, saying that he is locally known and does not deserve to be mentioned on wiki is also very strange. You can delete all the writers from Uzbekistan on that basis as you don't know any of them. One suggestion I would give to you is google his name as it is written on Uzbek alphabet (copy/paste) - Аҳмад Аъзам. Or copy/paste exactly this: Ahmad A’zam. It seems "'" and "’" is the problem here. If you search "A'zam" results are different. But if you search "A’zam" you will get there and can see that he is very well covered. Also I am new to wiki and at the moment it is not easy for me to edit/add information, so excuse my mistakes. For the record, I am uzbek and know the guy as well.Humoyoon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humoyoon (talk • contribs) 10:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't find a record about him on google news or scholar, and google search only returns social networks results like facebook, friendster, friendfeed. If you can add a reliable source, like a television station site with a citation about him I'd definetely conclude he is notable and I'd even withdraw this AfD. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I said not much info or source in english. Article on Ahmad A'zam says that he WAS director of Channel, that is also a problem. I found the below articles on the web in russian, can be translated through google. here is the link through google translate:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.library.cjes.ru%2Fonline%2F%3Fa%3Dcon%26b_id%3D319%26c_id%3D2743&act=url

Read section named "TV and radio stations, news agencies" you can see him as Ahmad Azam, 1-channel-- General Manager - Ahmad Azam. 1st channel is also known as "Uzbekistan" channel.

Also you can read translation of this article:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.centrasia.ru%2FnewsA.php%3Fst%3D1053550260

Go to 4th paragraph, it mentions him as a director of 1st channel.

Try this search link as well, skip social networks and etc, you can see many websites publish his works - http://www.google.com/#q=Ahmad+A’zam&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=640&prmd=ivnso&ei=I7DTTfywKI7evQPRgaHBDQ&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=eac976dd6587aef2

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Humoyoon (talk • contribs) 11:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since you provided verifiable sources to showcase his notability I'm withdrawing this AfD. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Article has been speedy deleted under CSD A7. Peridon (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aberfeldie Baptist Church[edit]

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

Church located in Melbourne, however wikipedia is not a directory for every single church and the article itself is written like a preach and does not cite any source, but its factual (or inexistent) notability is the problem; Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should have been speedy deleted as spam. However, even if all the cruft was taken out we're left with a non-notable church like milliion of other small congregations.--Dmol (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see no evidence of notability. I note that church's own website is 'under construction' - it may have been thought that Wikipedia offered a ready alternative. It cannot be that for several reasons. Church members might like to look at Facebook or something similar as an alternative if they are having problems building a website. --AJHingston (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per spam. It is already tagged as such, to boot. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Result was Speedy delete' as a hoax article. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Lian Sea[edit]

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

No sources for 'Zhao Lian Sea' (fails WP:V); Zhengyi Dao contains no references to 'Zhao Lian Sea'. Possible misspelling or hoax. Meph^talk 20:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Stephens[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur artist who appears as either stunt or as extra, he was a contestant at X Factor his most notable event that would gather him a status of WP:1EVENT, article also lacks references only citing first-party sources (like his publisher and promo staff website), which in the article is denoted as he invested £1million, which I couldn't verify, the is also a statement that tells that he was author, producer and director of a movie which had relation with hollywood a-list actors, but this can't be verified either, as the articles of the a-list actors does not cite or refer about him. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this schlock-movie extra with a vanity-press book. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENTERTAINER, and a host of other policies. Qworty (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The article is full of puffery such as a claim for "securing a global sales deal with the online retailer Amazon" which is in reality a self-published novel through Creativespace that is sold by Amazon who will list anything with an ISBN for sale. His movie career is equally puffed up with a list of roles in major films which turn out to be really a bunch of uncreditted roles such as Man on Brooklyn Bridge in "Spiderman". -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles#Education. Sumsum2010·T·C 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Arrows[edit]

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

Elementary school article whose sole content is an advertisement for the student newspaper at that school. There is no claim to notability and the school appears to fail to meet WP:ORG. I believe the article should be converted to being a redirect to Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles#Education, per WP:WPSCH/AG#Notability - Barek (talk) - 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to coverage of school district per nominator, and well-established consensus against articles about ordinary primary schools. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - per nomination. Cited material can be kept. If the subject expands and its own notability created/proven, the article can be recraeted per WP:SPINOUT. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Barek and long-standing consensus. tedder (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SOP. Why is this even at AfD if the nom thinks this is a redirect candidate? Redirect is an editing issue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. web search shows no indication of greater notability than it being an elementary school with some internet presence. Name is interesting.(mercurywoodrose)66.80.6.163 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ale HaShalom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ok, so Jerusalem is an important city, nobody is questioning that. This street passes by some notable locations, not questioning that either. Notability is not inherited. The article does not explain why the street itself is notable enough to have its own article. The two sources used don't seem to have conveyed much information about this street, and one of them appears to be a book that has details on virtually every street in Jerusalem, so being listed there would not seem to confer notability. At the last AFD several users argued that there should be sources out there and that argument led to a "no consensus" result. Three weeks at at AFD, and all these months later those hypothetical sources still have not been found. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a street, it goes past some places, it's in a famous city. But no indication of its notability (unless the incomprehensible final sentence/para can be clarified into something giving notability?). PamD (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I can't currently verify that the Jerusalem streets book does not seem to give more than a sentence to this street, like the with previous AfD I would use common sense and judge the road that half surrounds Mount Zion as more than "just a street." Even just by its location indicates historic significance.--Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the nom, notability is not inherited. Passing by notable locations does not confer notability on a street. If its common sense that it is notable anyway, where are the sources to back that up? Why can't anyone seem to find them? Beeblebrox (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is this road has changed names many times throughout history with multiple spellings in multiple languages and mostly in non-Latin characters. --Oakshade (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly not every street in Jerusalem is notable, but this one makes a claim of notability which seems substantiated. Andrevan@ 06:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Andrevan. This street is a notable one. Marokwitz (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only does this street surround some notable places, but it is in fact the access road to them. The source that is mentioned that names "every" street in Jerusalem gives out quite notable information on every street listed. Linda Olive (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INHERIT. Passing by a notable location does not confer notability on a road. Neither does being the access to said location. Neither does being listed in a directory of roads. By that logic every road in Jerusalem is notable and every road that can be used to get anywhere notable is also notable. You can't seriously believe that to be the case. Can you? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only are there multiple sources, but the sources also explain how the road got its name, a very important factor in notability of a road. Sebwite (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where this is going but I really don't see the logic of that statement. Every road on earth got it's name for some reason or other. I grew up on a road called Miami Avenue. It was named that because it is on the banks of the Little Miami River. Does that make it notable? Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the general notability guideline states that something is notable on the basis of reliable sources. If you have reliable sources stating how a street got its name, that can contribute to making the street notable. It is very hard to find reliable sources that identify the origin of the name for most streets, and for this one, you can. Sebwite (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think that through again. That source is a guidebook that tells how nearly every street in Jerusalem got its name. In point of fact the person who added that copied almost word for word what the book had to say about this street. Two sentences on page 240. So again, by that logic every single street mentioned the 407 pages of that book would be automatically notable. The nutshell version of WP:N is "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence." Two sentences is hardly significant and enduring notice by the world at large. The other source is a work of fiction that mentions the street one time. A work of fiction is not a reliable source. See, if you actually bother to check the sources you will find they are extremely weak. The argument that these sources confer notability is laughable. Check for yourself and you will see. There's one source we have that isn't fiction says this is a name for a gate, not a street. We've got nothing usable here, nothing at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed the content sourced to the novel, and the content not attributed to any source. What we have left is the two sentences from the guidebook. They do not even verify that this is the name of a road, but only mention the Dung Gate, indicating this is another name for it. So, we can't even verify that this is the name of a street, let alone a notable one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have reverted me with the cryptic edit summary "wait until after afd."[9] I'm not aware of any policy, guideline, or even an essay that says that improperly sourced content cannot be removed during an AFD. Original research and content presented as fact that is in actuality based on a novel is the sort of thing we can and should remove at any time. As such I will be reverting that edit. This AFD has been rife with imaginary policies and guidelines that are apparently being made up on the spot to serve the desires of those making various unfounded assertions and this blind reverting of my edits, which have a very sound basis in Wikipedia policy, is over the line. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—two sourced sentences does not an article make. Imzadi 1979 → 13:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebwhite has elected to re-insert this improperly sourced content despite having no policy-based reason for doing so. I'm dismayed that they have elected to ignore policy like this but I can't revert to a version in compliance with WP:V without embarking on an edit war. See also: User talk:Beeblebrox#Ma'ale HaShalom info removal. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 22:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Israel[edit]

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

Two of the three massacres took place before the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel. Also, there are already List of killings and massacres before the 1948 Palestine war and List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (most of which are labelled "massacres"). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a finished list, as the template on top indicates. This, along with all of the other "List of massacres in [country]" articles, are works in progress. I have been busy over the past several days creating them and adding more massacres to these lists. There is no rhyme or reason to the order the massacres appear in a search, so it is completely random when they will appear in that order. But I have looked over hundreds of articles in massacres, and vaguely recall many of them took place in Israel. It can be noted within the list or possibly made into multiple charts whether a massacre took place before or after the formation of the actual country Israel as is known today. As for the other lists mentioned here, they only mentioned small time periods in Israel's history, not its complete history. Shaliya waya (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what a weird Point of view fork article. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename and/or merge and pay attention to possible POV issues. Andrevan@ 06:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Per Andrevan. This is a notable topic. Marokwitz (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Shaliya Waya - I just stumbled into this AfD because I saw that you created the List of massacres in Croatia article and the corresponding template. Have you got any idea how much nationalist warring the "list of massacres in (insert ex-Yugoslav country here)" will provoke, especially because there are no clear criteria on what constitutes a massacre and the sensationalist media in this part of the world call everything a "massacre". The Talk:List of events named massacres skirts around the issue by insisting on listing only events which have been labeled as massacres by reliable sources. In addition, you also created stub articles without giving a single reference for the event being labelled as a "massacre". You're opening a can of worms which will give dozens of editors headaches for months to come. This is a clear example of WP:FORK and all these articles are hardly to evolve into anything other than WP:SYNTH. For interested editors I suggest clicking through Template:Massacres to fully grasp the potential of articles such as List of massacres in East Timor, List of massacres in New Zealand and others. I fail to see the purpose. Timbouctou (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of concerns over POV, with some countries having controversy, the fact is, Israel is an existing country in the world today, just like USA, Canada, Australia, etc. There may be different opinions on how people feel about that. But by Wikipedia guidelines and neutrality in general, Israel deserves to be treated like any other country.

As for the other lists with just one massacre at the moment, they are growing. I am working hard on adding one massacre at a time from a list that has no rhyme or reason to its order. Some of the lists that started off with one now have several.

Keep The category Massacres in Israel contains 10 articles (not including this one). That should be sufficient for a list. Not all categories are complete, so there are likely many more. There are similar lists that exist for many other countries, so there is no reason why there should not be any for Israel. Linda Olive (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate list. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Baseball Watcher 22:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket Music[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and no reliable sources. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 18:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 18:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Apparently it hasn't, but I've included it in a more approriate list - see below.--Michig (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. When I removed Swpb's invalid second PROD from this before leaving for work this morning, I advised that anyone wishing to take it to AFD should (per WP:BEFORE) search Google first. Sadly, this does not appear to have happened. If it had, they might have found these: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michig (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've referenced their Allmusic biography into the article; that and the substantial reviews located by Michig demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Nothing came up in a 15 year Google news search, and only CMJ mentions turn up in Google books. While the sources listed by Michig (Allmusic, Pitchfork media, Tiny Mix Tapes, Pop Matters and The Portland Mercury) are all notable music publications, with the exception of the short Allmusic bio these are not feature articles about the band per ser. There is a mention of a song on a soundtrack, but the rest are music reviews. Also, the music reviews are in equal measure bad reviews. Whether or not notability can be established with a handful of music reviews--and mixed reviews at that--seems to be a gray area in WP:BAND.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would think that music reviews would not be valid coverage of a musical group - bands play live and make records, so that's what people are likely to write about. They may not be in-depth features but they easily meet the requirements of being significant coverage. I also don't understand how favourable reviews would make a band more notable than unfavourable reviews - we don't have critical opinion as an inclusion criterion.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because, if a band is truly notable then some publication will probably want to eventually profile them. A band that gets a few tepid reviews from Pitchfork and Tiny Mix Tapes and then disappears off the face of the planet, never to be thought of again, in my mind is not notable.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "A few tepid reviews" on some of the leading music websites in the western world are enough to satisfy WP:BAND.--sparkl_!sm ^hey! 13:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many reliable sources that can be found without too much difficulty. The band has been noticed and is therefore sufficiently notable. Also, when it comes to tepid or bad reviews, for purposes of this discussion there is no difference between positive notability and negative notability. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my concern so much as the fact that you can't write an article on this band... because no one has ever written an article on this band. If WP:BAND allows for the creation of articles on bands such Blanket Music then you're just going to have a giant database of mute facts with no historical context or biographical info. Maybe someday some notable publication will write an article on Blanket Music... but you can't go creating wikipedia articles on the future possibility of sources.

Anyway I realize my objection as it stands is WP: I DON'T LIKE IT, so I've suggested on the WP:BAND page that we consider refining notability standards.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notability of subject is established by reliable sources; detailed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Requiring feature articles to establish notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aim Multimedia[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. The only coverage I can find are press releases, and the single Hindu News reference [21] which seems more like an ad than a true article providing reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The single reference in the Hindu reads like a press release excerpt, and in any case is a rather insubstantial article. There is no other coverage that I can find to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Fork of The Dual Mirror Language of Leonardo Da Vinci which is also being discussed here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Vinci Code: Decoded[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR. Contested prod. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - frankieMR (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent example of why we don't allow original research here. Delete with fire. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dual Mirror Language of Leonardo Da Vinci[edit]

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

Pure WP:OR. Contested prod. Anthem of joy (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear case of WP:OR - reads like an essay. (See also The Da Vinci Code: Decoded by the same author - currently under prod for the same reasons as this one). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - frankieMR (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is pure WP:OR. Or shall I say "eteled" so you can hold it to a mirror? History2007 (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because its utter bullshit. Its not a secret code if all it is is backwards writing. Anyone could figure that out. In the Leonardo Da Vinci article it says this was done most likely because he was left handed, and it was easier that way. That makes way more sense. Dream Focus 03:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that this article was created by a user with a real-name account, I will refrain from publicly drawing health-related conclusions. Hans Adler 19:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disregarding WP:OR and so on, the appropriate place for the content is a paragraph within Leonardo da Vinci, where it already is. —Tamfang (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Edward321 (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Williams (chemist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If as the article says he's an assistant professor whose most notable achievement is a CAREER award (an early-career award that is given to a high fraction of faculty in the sciences at research universities) then it's quite likely that he doesn't yet pass WP:PROF, although he may well do so in a few years. The Google scholar citation record bears this out, too: his work doesn't have high enough citation counts to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and the other criteria seem to also not be there. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - not only fails WP:ACADEMIC, it looks more like a profile than an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. There is a highly cited T J Williams in neurobiology, but it seems that this not this subject. What are the cites on GS? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kowalski[edit]

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

16-year-old (possibly only 15) "rising star on Youtube" with exceedingly slim credits and no significant coverage; fails WP:ENT and all other relevant SNGs as well as the GNG. Certainly looks like a speedy candidate, but PROD was contested by the article creator, so I don't want to do a just-not-notable speedy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be an autobiography. I have also not been able to find any reliable sources to support claim of notability. I have pointed the article creator in the direction of all the relevant policies but the only recent updates have been to the YouTube stats and the addition of another unreliable source.--CharlieDelta (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article I created, while concerning a minor celebrity, is still completely accurate. I do not see harm in leaving it up and the person in question will undoubtedly become big enough to garner this page again anyhow. Oberlinjoe (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant COI, fails WP:ENT and GNG. Wanda latoot (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For alck of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Joint (cannabis). Neither of the keep arguments count any more strongly then assertions and the need for sourcing remains. The material we have is very poorly sourced so there merger needs to be very selective to what is sourced. The consensus of where to merge is unclear so I'm happy for editiorial judgement to be used for this Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roach clip[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was transwikied in June 2005, and somehow inexplicably survived an AFD in October 2007 (one in which nobody addressed the appropriately tagged transwiki action). It's nothing more than a dicdef, with two references--one to the definition at dictionary.com and the other to the definition at Merriam-Webster's online site. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I would have tagged it for speedy deletion (A5) had it not survived an AFD after the transwiki date. At the very least, it should be redirected to Joint (cannabis), which contains essentially the same information and provides context for the usage of the term. Horologium (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion and the nominator suggests one himself. There are plenty of sources available for the topic and if we chose to merge, then roach (cannabis culture) would be the obvious place. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are plenty of sources available, supply them. This was originally transwikied six years ago, and the tired "there are plenty of sources available" trope was used four years ago. All too often, "there are plenty of sources available" is shorthand for "I can't be bothered to actually source the article, but I like it". The only sources are two dictionary definitions, and it was transwikied six years ago. The arguments provided in the original AFD don't cut it; Fish or cut bait. As I noted originally, if I hadn't looked at the article history (including the talk page), I would have speedied it (under A5). This is actually a courtesy discussion, because I did a bit of follow-through before nominating it. As it stands, any uninvolved admin could easily delete it as an A5, and then you would be arguing it at DRV, and I seriously doubt that any admin would be willing to overturn an A5 deletion. Horologium (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joint (cannabis). Some Wikipedia article needs to clearly explain what a roach clip is, to help those who might mistakenly believes it is something used to kill cockroaches, and include the photo shown here at this article. But the device itself, while mentioned in numerous books, doesn't seem to have a lot written about it, or at least I haven't found enough to warrant a full article unto itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I thought a roach clip was for entomologists who wanted a creative broach. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not trying to invoke WP:WAX, but we can draw inspiration from articles such as bong, hookah and rolling paper, which show the potential of what the article could be, albeit shorter. As is, it needs work and expanding, but roach clips have had many cultural references (Shorty using jumper cables for one in "Scary Movie" for example, Cheech and Chong, etc.) and are a commonly used item, with many even serving as a form of "art". Yes, art. The fact that they are illegal in some states, yet legal in others can be covered. There is enough potential material to make an article of at least modest size, and sources do exist. High Times should be good for at least a few, NORML would, too. The primary problems with the article are issues of editing. I would find it very, very hard to believe that the device "roach clip" is not notable in any general way. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not that I know even how to use such an object, but I can't see what (a) is wrong with the article, or (b) can't be fixed by a merger. Why is this at AfD? Bearian (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cannabis (drug). It can be recreated if it is expanded from reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Bart[edit]

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

WP:N -- Can't find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this Dutch voice actor. I kept feeling like I was close enough to finding something and never quite managing it, though, so additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Voice actors are the same as regular actors. WP:ENTERTAINER guidelines number 1 has been met: Has had roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other public productions; Dream Focus 18:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find a book listing him as being part of the Dutch Sesame Street, called Sesamstraat. [22] He is already in Category:Sesamstraat. That isn't listed with his other roles. Anyone know what character he plays? Also, what Dutch language sites would list credits? Is there a dutch version of the Internet Movie Database or Amazon.com? Dream Focus 18:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, I saw that link, however, Books LLC, the publisher of the book you list, simply republishes Wikipedia content. [23] I am serious about hoping you can find better sources, though. Best, --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: [24] site is from the Dutch equivalent of PBS, and verifies the role. The role looks quite minor, and certainly does get you anything with respect to WP:GNG, but could certainly be used to argue toward notability under WP:ENTERTAINER #1. Hope this helps. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nom I added one apparent newspaper article that has a few sentences in Dutch, confirms the Bob the Builder role, etc. Feeling a lot more comfortable with the article based on that and the minor sesamstraat role documentation above. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of The Fast and the Furious characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leticia Ortiz (character)[edit]

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

Non-notable Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Same reasoning as Brian O'Conner. The article is plot, the character is not-notable. She has appeared in two films I believe but there are no significant reliable sources upon which an article could be based and the character is arguably unimportant in the real world offering no substantial coverage. Not enough notable information here that couldn't be merged or already exists in the List of characters from this series.[reply]

Merge to The Fast and the Furious (film series) – Characters and keep the character's description to one paragraph, perhaps 1-2 sentences of the person's role in each film. The character is not notable enough on its own to have a reasonable encyclopedic entry. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't List of The Fast and the Furious characters be a better place for this information?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that there was a list somewhere! I did not see it at The Fast and the Furious, which was why I mentioned the series article. Honestly, it looks like that list does the job in every way. I'd support just redirecting to that list. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe only valuable piece of information on here, which isn't very useful but is notable and should be kept wherever it goes is this "director Rob Cohen said he "flipped out" over Michelle Rodriguez' performance as a teenager who boxes in the 2000 drama Girlfight. "We needed someone who could play a Joan Jett-type character who is really wild", said Cohen" as it presents some real world input to the character. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Definitely keep the info DWB notes directly above me but beyond that no reason for separate article, as noted in nom. Millahnna (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fictional character that does not meet the general notability guideline and the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. I favor deletion over redirect since I do not think that it is a plausible search term because it has the legend (character) in the article title. Jfgslo (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of The Fast and the Furious characters. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 02:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian O'Conner[edit]

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

The article is plot, the character is not-notable. He has appeared in several films but there are no significant reliable sources upon which an article could be based and the character is arguably unimportant in his own series as looking at reviews to use as sources, his character is rarely if ever mentioned alongside that of Jordana Brewster. Not enough notable information here that couldn't be merged or already exists in the List of characters from this series. Article is also unreferenced save for IMDB. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Fast and the Furious (film series) – Characters and keep the character's description to one paragraph, perhaps 1-2 sentences of the person's role in each film. The character is not notable enough on its own to have a reasonable encyclopedic entry. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone pointed out the existence of List of The Fast and the Furious characters, and the list already provides succinct character descriptions. I support a redirect (and no merge) to that list. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per nom and Erik. Millahnna (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Fast and the Furious characters With zero reliable third-party sources independent of the subject the fictional character that does not meet the general notability guideline and, since the article does not provide material to support reception and significance of the fictional character, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Given that the character plays a major role in the series, I believe that it is a plausible search term. Jfgslo (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Resonator[edit]

Guitar Resonator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:SPAM
This page is probably advertising that has slipped through the cracks. As has been noted on the Effects unit talk page this is a highly obscure, all but unknown effect. No notable sources found after Google books, news and scholar search. No mention of device in notable guitar magazines such as Guitar Player and Guitar World.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a non-notable feedback device for electric guitars. I am unable to find any coverage about it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I also can find no coverage, and agree that the article is probably advertising-oriented. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You won't have found it, because — as, alas, usual for Wikipedia — we have two Wikipedia Product Placement articles on these things by their trade names, Guitar Resonator and EBow, and a redlink at electromagnetic string-driver which is the actual, formal and non-trademark, name for these things. Search for that, and you'll find things like John Schneider's The contemporary guitar pp 58 et seq.. Yes, this does cast doubt on vibrator (music). Schneider doesn't call them vibrators and nor does anyone else that I can find. You can get to a proper encyclopaedia without using the deletion facility by renaming vibrator (music) to electromagnetic string-driver and merging Guitar Resonator into it so that it's about string drivers in general. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's plenty of coverage on the Ebow,[25] so I don't agree that article should be merged as many articles exist for notable effects devices. There's no coverage of this specific product, the guitar resonator.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Cover[edit]

Castle Cover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm not good at judging this sort of thing, so I'm bringing it here for discussion.
Google News has only trivial hits relating to the company's sponsorship of a sports team and of a newspaper company's jobs fair. Google has lots of hits, but they seem to be other sites recycling the statements on the company's own web sites.
The article is almost entirely the work of COI editors. The current version has no independent sources. Past versions have included a newspaper source about the sports team sponsorship.
I don't see any evidence that the company is a notable insurer. John of Reading (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about an insurance agent or reseller. Advertising: ...named as the fastest growing UK home insurer in 2007. The company is continuing to grow and develop... able to work with its select panel of insurers to offer competitive prices.... committed to recruiting within the local area.... No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture, without which no business is an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Hood[edit]

Nikolai Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested prod. As far as I have seen so far, the "young actor, director, and political activist" has provided no assertion of notability per our WP:Notability (entertainers) criteria. All of the references are to self-published blogs and links to YouTube video channels. A websearch provides nothing to suggest that Mr Hood meets any of the criteria; no IMDb page or filmography available, and the recent contested prod provided a self-written website stating "For those of you who don't know, Nikolai Hood is a renowned young actor, director and political activist." So, I suspect this is also an autobiography. Good luck to him, though, and I hope he finds enough success to have this page recreated at a later date, but not now. Bob talk 16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was not able to find any reliable, independent sources that verify that this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article should be kept because Nikolai Hood is a rising personality in the indie film world, creating films that hearken back to silent film stars and vintage film. He even had a small showing at South by Southwest this year. More experienced editors should search for more sources, but the page should remain. David copperson (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC) — David copperson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The thing is, because you started the article, it's really up to you to find some sources which attest to why he should be included - just saying he's "a rising personality" and then providing lots of self-published sources isn't enough, as we work off facts. Anybody who has their own blog or has uploaded a video to YouTube could be included on Wikipedia under the current claim to notability - are there any newspaper articles/IMDb profiles or indy festival entries that attest to this "rising personality" claim? Bob talk 00:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally, I have only had "okay" success, and, though I hope for more, it is really up to the Wikipedia administrators to decide whether I am notable enough.NikolaiHood (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC) — NikolaiHood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, it isn't up to the administrators. It's totally up to the sources. What are the independent sources- the newspapers, magazines, books, and so forth- that have written about you? If they say you're notable, the article stays. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nikolai has contributed to the Alex Jones radio show, been features in a magazine article, and has attempted to uphold the comedic styles of a lost generation, and for these reasons, I believe that he is credible enough for his own Wikipedia article. Wclutterbuck (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC) William Clutterbuck - Account has no contributions outside of this debate, and may be a sockpuppet due to the same incorrect style of signing posts. Bob talk 08:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the magazine article about Nikolai Hood? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine is in print only —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.249.39 (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is keepable if anyone can find independant magazine or news articles showing notability beyond the niche fans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.247.194 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter how many different accounts you create. If you can share good sources, then you only need one account to show the notability of yourself. If there are no good sources, there's no number of posts you can make here that will change that. Please, stop disrupting the discussion with multiple accounts. It cannot help you accomplish your goal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please do not make false accusations check my edit history and distinct location i am a wiki user from the uk, with no previous involvement in this and i would ask that you withdraw your accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.247.194 (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussion of the deletion of the article Nikolai Hood. Please explain what specific part of the notability criteria this person meets, and what reliable sources confirm that. No other comments are useful in this space. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not good enough. Darkjedi10 (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nobility criteria lists "significant cult following", which may be true in this case going off of some of the comments on this deletion log. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.81.114 (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. Under our current policies, we just don't have enough independent material for an article - we rely too much on the subject's own sources, which calls the neutrality of the article into question. That said, the usual caveats apply here - Mr. Hood seems to be doing good work, and it's possible (perhaps likely) that we'll see work of sufficient prominence as to justify an article. We're not there yet, though, unfortunately. Also, a note to User:NikolaiHood - remember, we're not talking about you personally, just your article. Part of that is the coverage of your work so far, but a deletion here does not - and should not - reflect on you personally. For my part, good on you and best of luck. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about Nikolai Hood in reliable sources. One editor indicated he has a small show at South by Southwest this year. I don't know what is meant by a small show, but he does not appear in the 2011 SXSW film lineup. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the time being re User:Whpq & User:FisherQueen. No notability in reliable sources, although this fellow is definitely interesting, and I hope he becomes notable to merit a return to Wikipedia. My personal interest in this is that David copperson added Hood to the "Influenced" list of the article Stanley Kubrick which I deleted as failing the Template:Infobox person criterion for notability, on May 13th. Today I considered adding text on Hood to the article, but found this discussion, and so I won't.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nikolai Hood is not a rising film director or political activist. There are no reliable sources because he is only in the high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.243.189 (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a "keep" then? Bob talk 14:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline. Some fishiness afoot here. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just delete it. I am not notable yet and the amount of defamatory edits are excessive. Please just remove the article until I merit nobility and try to find out whether user David copperson is just using this "sock puppetry", which I looked up, to somehow defame me.NikolaiHood (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. merging isn't an option because there is no consensus that there is any kind of reliable sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social Engagement Advertising[edit]

Social Engagement Advertising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:NEO. This article is written about a service mark of, "Social Engagement Advertising" which I am unable to find substantial reliable source mentions to establish notability of the term. It appears to be a marketing term used by Blinq that has not become well established as a notable term. If sufficient reliable source coverage of the term itself is found and added to the article to establish notability, I will be happy to withdraw this nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will investigate, as well. The term is service marked on their Web site and I wanted to ensure that it was not misused. I can remove the service mark and the sentence referencing the service mark if necessary/appropriate. Tnic256 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the service mark and the reference to BLiNQ and the service mark. Should I make all the instances of Social Engagement Advertising all lower case? What if we move this to the inclubator so I can get help to get this right? Thank you for your guidance. Tnic256 (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found four references to social engagement advertising within the first two pages on a Google search, listed below. I will insert the links/references in the references section in the article. Please advise if this helps or if I need to keep researching (Monday!). Thank you SO MUCH for your guidance. Zynga’s PetVille Game Has a Quality New Advertising Offer Wall from SocialVibe Inside Facebook, Eric Eldon, January 13, 2010 [26] “It’s provided by a company called SocialVibe, from what we can tell; it’s not one of the established offer companies, and instead it has spent the last couple of years creating social engagement advertising that caters to major brands.” Ending the Impression Addiction DigiDay, Jay Samit, May 2, 2011 [27] “It’s time we look to more fruitful means to reach an audience – and social engagement advertising delivers the goods." Why Old Social Networks are Redefining Themselves for Success, Usable Clicks, October 27, 2009 [28] “Facebook itself is focusing on social engagement advertising, which is important when their environment is all about social interaction.” Social Media and Social Engagement Top of Mind for CMOs, The Great American Startup, David Koehn, Sept. 6, 2008 [29] “I recently attended the Aberdeen CMO conference to get a feel for where CMOs are at with regards social media at large and social engagement advertising in particular.” Tnic256 (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I researched and added four citations in public domain of social engagement advertising, radically editing the "Origin" section. I included these references in the References section, as well. Need to wrap up for today (to get my children!) in the hopes that you will let me work on this more on Monday to get it up to Wikipedia standard. I am happy to work through the issues. Best, Tnic256 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Fails WP:SPAM. A google news, books and scholar search substantiates ConcernedVancouverite's concerns: "social engagement advertising" is some company called BLinQ Media's neologism for "marketing". The only mention of it in a Google books search was Facebook Advertising for Dummies in a short paragraph on BLinQ.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Social Engagement Advertising" is BLinQ's service mark (SM): http://blinqmedia.com/wp-content/themes/blinq_media/images/logo.png.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did Atlantictire or Concerned Vancouverite see my comments above and results of Google search, as well as significant edits made? social engagement advertising shows up much earlier than BLiNQ's founding, which I corrected in the article. Trying to do the right thing!Tnic256 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the sources you provide do not meet the WP criteria for reliability WP:SOURCES. It is WP policy to assume good faith, but writing an article for a marketing company on their service mark is not exactly "trying to do the right thing."--Atlantictire (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for the clarification and prompt response on the article. I read a great deal of information over the past two days about how to write and publish an article, but did not specifically see the service mark stipulation - there was a lot of information to study and absorb - so I evidently missed that policy and I apologize. I was forthright and prompt in making edits and finding references to the term per the suggestions. I did not intentionally try to publish something that was inappropriate and I am sorry it was a waste of our time. In a quarter century of business experience, my integrity has never, ever been questioned... for good reason. So I am not sure how to respond to the personal comment.

Tnic256 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Studying the guidelines... is any of the content a potential candidate for a smerge, transwiki or incubator so I can get help making the article relevant?

Tnic256 (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as appropriate to Social media marketing, an existing article on the same topic, but one that is more encyclopedic and less "how-to". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SAP AG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAP Enterprise Learning[edit]

SAP Enterprise Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not appear to meet criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software) -- couldn't find refs where it was discussed as significant, doesn't appear to be used in schools, no obvious third-party manuals, and no historical significance asserted. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Part of the nominator's argument for deletion is that the product does not appear to be used in schools. However, I could not find any evidence that indicates that this product is intended for use in schools. According to SAP's website, this product appears to be intended for use by large businesses to implement a web or virtual classroom for employee training. This is supported by page 95 of Sam's Teach Yourself SAP in 24 Hours. This book also implies that Enterprise Learning is a module of SAP ERP product (I don't have time to read more closely). If so, a merge to the article on that ERP product might be warranted if notability cannot be established. Rilak (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Goes to SAP AG. Szzuk (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Following up on my earlier comment, it seems that Enterprise Learning is part of SAP ERP, so this article should be merged there for lack of notability. Google Books finds 40 or so results for Enterprise Learning, and as far as I can see, all coverage is either not independent or not significant enough for notability. Rilak (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. spa votes carry very little weight Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Potylo[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Rob Potylo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. The article has been for the most part maintained by Wikipedians whos only edits are for this article. Fails WP:N and WP:MUS. A Google search comes up with his personal website and Wikipedia article. The only other mention I found was for an article on Boston.com. However it discusses the subject's upcoming public access TV program for the New England area. Endlessdan (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - disagree that it fails WP:N. Potylo receives significant coverage in the Boston Phoenix and the Boston Herald in the context of his show. I may not have heard of him but it appears to satisfy the notability guideline. —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His TV show is a local television program in New England. --Endlessdan (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "In the context of his show" would indicate he wasn't the subject of these local bloggers, and in fact he's not. Strictly a local fellow who fails any of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER as well as the GNG. Ravenswing 15:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GNG doesn't require that he be the primary subject of the coverage. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I don't dispute that he's a local entertainer -- hell, I'm local and I haven't even heard of him -- but GNG doesn't provide an exception for provincialism. I agree, however, that it doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER even for a moment. —Tim Pierce (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other point would be "local bloggers." Because a blog is hosted on the Phoenix's website doesn't make it, IMHO, a "reliable source." Were these pieces ever printed in the paper? Ravenswing 07:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I also don't see why it's relevant whether it only appeared online or whether it ever appeared in print. The author is a staff writer for the Phoenix and it appears to me to be an official column for the paper, so I'm presuming it's subject to the paper's usual editorial policies. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually read the Phoenix in print (does anyone?), but Potylo has been on the cover of a number of print publications, and if not cover stories, at least has been in printed articles. The original Zaino source was linked to an old website, but actually is in the Boston Globe archives.

Comment - Also, the original article for the character Robby Roadsteamer was left untouched for ages, despite less impact and coverage. Yet the article for a real person and their character is not allowed? Whether or not someone likes the individual shouldn't determine whether or not they have an article. See also the NPR feature on the show [[30]] & Susan Sloan interview for ABC Chronicle [[31]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halakahiki82 (talk • contribs) 17:10, May 16, 2011
Comment to the Comment - Just because Robby Roadsteamer was left untouched for ages doesn't mean it warranted an article any more than Rob Potylo. It either means that no one noticed the article existed &/or cared to look into its notability. --Endlessdan (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the days edits by the user above, I'm forced to believe he is the article's subject based on some of the trivial information added (what high school he attended).--Endlessdan (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the Comment That is both untrue and ridiculous. Individual commenters also should not be attacked in discussions on articles. WP:NPOV. Endlessdan is not sticking to the context of whether or not an individual in a post has enough notoriety to retain an entry. The question is: with television, print and electronic coverage, a multi-state broadcast television show, and what could arguably be considered a cult following (true, within MA) is that substantial enough to retain the post. Is there a reason to delete the post other than "I do not like him?" The discussion has come to the point of splitting hairs. Nick Lavallee (comedian) is arguably a local talent as well, should that entry be deleted? Halakahiki82 (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)Halakahiki82 talk)[reply]
Reminder to all concerned to assume good faith until proven otherwise. It is possible that Halakahiki82 is Rob Potylo, but it also seems plausible that they're just an enthusiastic fan, and it would be good not to leap to conclusions. That said, Halakahiki, it's important for the contents of Wikipedia articles to be based on reliable sources, especially for a biography of a living person. You added the high school that Rob Potylo went to but did not include a source for that information, which does raise a valid question about how you know that. Please add sources for your recent edits; that will help resolve some of this. —Tim Pierce (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Despite the fact that I firmly believe nothing but the content of the article should be discussed, I will address that I am most certainly NOT Rob Potylo. That said, for small High Schools, where does one find actual proof without locating a diploma and scanning it in or something otherwise insane. The original school information came from articles on the web (which, I guess isn't a viable source anymore?) confirming that Potylo, in fact, grew up in Danvers and attended school there as well. It does say on Potylo's facebook account that these schools were attended, but I do understand that information on FB is not reliable. Halakahiki82 (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)Halakahiki82 talk)[reply]

Keep - there are also other sites besides the Phoenix that mention Potylo. He gets tons of local coverage and also has been featured on ABC Chronicle for his local tv show. [[32]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halakahiki82 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC) — Halakahiki82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
So in a nutshell: He's a local guy who gets local coverage for his local tv show. --Endlessdan (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, yes. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am making a list of the things that appear to be notable
(Limited Notability) Nomination for "Live Band of the Year" at the Boston Music Awards. A quick glance of this link reveals only a stub

Feature on VH1's Best Week Ever (This is unsourced) here: http://www.bestweekever.tv/2005-11-14/he-put-a-baby-in-you/

Created Reality Sitcom "Quiet Desperation" (mention on WCVB TV http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/27398706/detail.html)

Said Sitcom was featured on NPR

I have no interest as to whether or not the article is deleted or kept. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have covered the comedy scene in Boston since 1998, most notably for the Boston Globe, and have written about Rob Potylo/Robby Roadsteamer several times through the years in the Globe. He's had significant media coverage for an unusual comedy/music career here in Boston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzaino (talk • contribs) 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC) — Nzaino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Dictum Contrary to what the user above said, I don't dislike the article's subject. Don't know him and I never heard of him. From the little information found on the web, he seems like someone I would like. However, in all this bickering no one has come up with anything that passes WP:BIO or WP:ENT.

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.Fail.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.Fail.

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - Fail.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Fail. None found.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Fail.

Being a local artist of sorts myself, I can respect the level of coverage he's received in his hometown but none of the links provided or information found in his article tell us that he warrants an encyclopedia article. Sorry. --Endlessdan (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - changing my vote per Endlessdan's updates. I think the article passes WP:GNG (barely) but does not appear to pass the more specific guidelines for entertainers or general biographies. —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rob Potylo is most certainly worthy of an entry. I'm sure you all have "local" celebs (local to Boston is pretty big coverage, actually) who then make it on to "real" TV. This is the case with Rob. He has released dozens of albums, played all over the place for years with a variety of different self-propelled acts, created a web show which he successfully spun into a "real" TV show and created a second show, which is pending but whose pilot is already in the can. He has created events and films his show in such a way as to draw together dozens of other artists, many of whom themselves have Wiki entries. So - hey, what else do you have to do to be considered "legit?" I can cite countless examples of "national" bands who have entries here maintained solely by themselves and their friends, This is not the case with Potylo. Been watching his career for years, ever since he was a DJ on THE (at the time) Boston radio station. So again I ask: Radio, releasing dozens of records, producing hundreds of musical events, creating and starring in two television shows - what else do you need to do? If that's not enough, Wikipedia is useless vs. the printed Encyclopedia. IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Leroy Tirebiter (talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— George Leroy Tirebiter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Tim Pierce (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Rob Potylo, as Robby Roadsteamer, has been nominated multiple times for the Boston Music Awards. He does in fact have a cult following in Boston. He regularly is featured in the Boston music press. And his reality sitcom about the Boston music scene features numerous other notable local celebrities. He's not world famous. But I think he meets the notability criteria Zenomax (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria is clearly listed above. He does not meet them at this time. --Endlessdan (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments lean the scales towards delete. Still, some of the content may be merged to other articles, as suggested. Let me know if you need to access the content. Tone 20:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Noam Chomsky[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Criticism of Noam Chomsky

Articles for deletion/Criticism of Noam Chomsky (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Criticism of Noam Chomsky (3rd nomination)

Criticism of Noam Chomsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is essentially a WP:POVFORK involving a living person.Our WP:BLP policy expressly puts restrictions on Criticism sections and discourages giving them "disproportionate space" This article does just that. Criticism of his Linguistic theory needs to be put in articles on the theories themselves. Criticism of his political views material needs to be integrated into Noam Chomsky's political views. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge there's a lot of quotes, most of which could be summarized and eliminated and rolled into the main bio as well as the Noam Chomsky's political views article. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after reviewing the prior deletion discussions, I think the criticisms are notable enough to warrant a separate article. ZHurlihee (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know at this point I'm getting a little too prolific in this conversation, but the previous keeps were both speedy under snow from before WP:BLP was an established policy. I feel like this is a flimsy justification. i kan reed (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that WP:BLP was not an established policy in 2008 or 2009? ZHurlihee (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a pov fork. It looks unbalanced and a bit like an attack page, although I know it isn't. Do we have a page called "Achivements of Noam Chomsky"? No. Merge whatever is worth keeping and delete. Szzuk (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The page is well sourced, and does give responses to criticism that is also well sourced in most cases. That said, it still exists as a page to attack a living person, and the talk page discussions tend to highlight that fact with a format of "how can I incorporate this criticism I have personally?" type of discussions. The need for this as a seperate page has not really been adequately demonstrated. i kan reed (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with possible Merge of some content with Noam Chompsky: Terrible MOS precedent. I can't find other "Criticisms of" articles about American political polemicists who are/were peers of Chompsky and are of comparable notability (e.g. "Criticisms of Howard Zinn","Criticisms of William F. Buckley, Jr.", "Criticism of Gore Vidal", "Criticisms of William Safire"). Instead, these criticisms are subsumed within the respective articles--as well they should be to provide NPOV balance. I agree with Szzuk: this article is a POV fork created because someone got fed up with edit warring on the Chompsky page. Also the article contains lengthy block quotes which is poor MOS.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oy. Check this out: Noam Chomsky's political views. So the Chompsky partisans and the Chompsky detractors each get their own article? Seems kind of silly.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Criticism of articles are dwindling in number for precisely the same reason. Wikispan (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ZHurlihee. 203.118.185.155 (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chomsky criticism is hard to summarize within the Chomsky article without looking like an ad-hominem. It deserves its own article to be adequately explained. Ben (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it easier to summarize in a "Criticism of" article without looking like an ad-hominem?--Atlantictire (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that Chomsky criticism consists of critics citing Chomsky's pattern of fabricating and misrepresenting his sources, a great deal of text is required. Such nit-picky and tedious criticisms fall apart when summarized; "X says Chomsky's making stuff up. Chomsky denies this." is completely uninformative. Ben (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, you managed to describe exactly that in 2 sentences. In fact, trying to communicate such a pattern through a wikipedia article like this falls into 2 no-no categories: unencyclopedic lists, and POV structure of articles. The point shouldn't be to highlight something you find objectionable about Chompsky, but to give an overview of the notable criticisms. As the article stands, it doesn't do a good job of WP:BLP. i kan reed (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should vote to delete. I may have expressed the point poorly, but I stand by my keep. Ben (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote. The reason I'm counter-arguing your points is that deletion discussions are driven by consensus. I'd like to hear your counter-arguments to what I've been saying, because standing disagreement doesn't get at the heart of why this should be an article or not. If you feel my interpretation that this article focuses its structure on demeaning a living person and only includes notable criticisms, then please say so, and say why. I don't mind being wrong, but it's not helpful to say my conclusion is wrong without explaining why. i kan reed (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here are my three concerns:
I watched the Noam Chomsky page pretty closely from 2002 to 2004, back before the fork of the Criticism page. Because most of the editors of the article were big Chomsky fans--and perhaps because Wikipedia's standards were much looser back then--criticism would regularly get edited out through well-intentioned rephrases and summaries that were never quite obviously unacceptable, revert-worthy POV edits. As I wrote at the time, any citation of criticsm of Chomsky gets qualified into "here's a transparently incorrect opinion of some nitwit who disagrees with the Great Man, and more importantly, here's why they're obviously wrong" For examples, see [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. I suspect that it might be particularly instructive to see what happened to the Chomsky and anti-semitism subject after that fork was merged back into the main article. (Mind, the same drift may happen in the Criticism article we're discussing: see the Zerzan section for an example of pro-Chomsky rebuttal taking up more space than is given to the actual criticism.)

Critics who cite Chomsky's mis-representation of sources are necessarily nit-picky, and representing the substance of their criticisms requires space if it is to be done adequately.

Chomsky criticism is notable on its own and has a complicated taxonomy which might overwhelm the main article if it were incorporated.

So I'd say that although the criticism article is currently a mess (which was not always the case if I remember correctly) incorporating the criticism article will almost certainly result in a summarization that will be so pro-Chomsky as to not even include prominent critics like Oliver Kamm or Christopher Hitchens. -Ben (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To quote critic Oliver Kamm: I’m afraid that refutations of Chomsky necessarily are long, because he habitually distorts and fabricates source material, and it requires a close examination of that material to understand how Chomsky works. In this case, where Chomsky makes an extreme assertion without troubling to give a source at all, it requires examining a large amount of material to come to a conclusion.

-Ben (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problematically, some of what you said supports the idea that this is a POV fork. This article shouldn't exist just because some editors have a problem with incorporating criticism into the Noam Chomsky article. NPOV disputes are a serious issue, but a seperate article to just address Chomsky's faults is a clear violation of WP:POVFORK. No one is trying to alledge that individual criticims are nitpicky, but that in and of itself doesn't justify entire subsections devoted to each one. Driving for the underlying point of WP:DUE, is that these views can be notable, but they don't necessarily need to be presented in detail if they don't represent a major proportion of the whole of published information about the subject(Chomsky in this case). I do understand your point about the taxonomy, however, and that reason I can understand keeping this article if its format were drastically altered to present a less antagonistic format. i kan reed (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the more I research it for this discussion, the less impressed I am with the Criticism of article. Tucking the criticism off in its own article has kept criticism from being edited out, but it hasn't kept the criticisms from being buried by OR-feeling rebuttals, and it certainly hasn't kept the critics' arguments well organized or well presented. -Ben (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Resident Anthropoligist is spot on re this being a POV fork, as well as in his BLP comments. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess I'm concerned that this notion of Chompsky as someone who "habitually distorts and fabricates source material" is not widely-held among well-credentialed linguists and historians, but rather is the opinion of his detractors. If the later is true, then an article created--as Ben has said--for the sole purpose of presenting this viewpoint is certainly POV. Christopher Hitchens and Oliver Kamm are both polemicists. Instead of creating a POV fork, it would probably have been better to name Chompsky's most prominent critics and summarize their criticisms of him. If there were incidents that created a scandal--not just an outrage in the minds of the people who dislike Chompsky, but something reported on as a scandal in the media--then that should also be included. Perhaps this process can be done through arbitration with the help of a trusted, seasoned editor.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there are several different kinds of criticism of Chomsky (please note the lack of a "p"!) and allegations about his issues with sources form only a subset, which is mostly advanced by polemicists. It is particularly hard to summarize, as I've argued, but certainly Zerzan and others do not base their criticism on it in any way. -Ben (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this person is known primarily for the controversies and unusual views, as described in this article. This is a legitimate sub-article, just as many other "criticism" articles.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point -- Chomsky is not just a linguist; he's also a well-known polemicist, just as many of his critics are. We shouldn't restrict allowed critics of his political writings to just credentialed linguists. -Ben (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, neither Glenn Beck nor Michael Moore developed one of the most influential theories of language acquisition in the field of linguistics, and there's no "Criticism of" page about them. Look, when we learned about Chomsky in my college psychology class, no one made any mention of his politics. If "universal grammar" is controversial then criticisms of that theory belong on that theory's page.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while he is a public figure and controversial, I do not see this matter as being notable in itself. Two of the problems with POV Forks are that they also tend to be non-notable in themselves, and also lack context, both of which are reasons to delete or even speedily to delete. The criticisms, as it were, make more sense either in the subject's article, or in articles about his theories. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but let's leave the hyperbole out. There's no way this is a legitimate speedy delete candidate. There's plenty of context for a reader to figure out who Noam Chomsky is. i kan reed (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an excellent point. Has there ever been a body of work, a book or documentary, focusing on the criticisms of Noam? Szzuk (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Anti-Chomsky Reader. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is clearly a POV fork, and has no place here. Any relevant material can easily be included in Noam Chomsky or Noam Chomsky's political views. RolandR (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of iCarly parodies[edit]

List of iCarly parodies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A substantially similar version of this page was previously speedily deleted as a copyright violation of http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Parodies -- however, this seems to have been an invalid reason, because the iCarly wikia uses a Creative Commons license compatible with Wikipedia's. On the other hand, the other, non-copyright-based reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of parodies in iCarly still appear to be valid reasons to delete the page. Basically, this is a list of non-notable fake product names used in a television show (the show itself is notable, but its fake product names are not). Because the previous AfD was cut short on copyvio grounds, and should have been allowed instead to proceed to a full deletion, I am requesting deletion of this page. Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no indication of why this list of random information is notable (WP:LIST), also trivia is discouraged. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be all madeup for all I know, no refs, nobody will every reference it either. The topic isn't notable never mind the individual parodies. Szzuk (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete no third party coverage of the topic in reliable sources and unlikely to ever have coverage. Fails WP:N. In addition it is all original research with users having determined what product/company etc is being "parodied". Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial WP:TRIVIA. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate at WP:Article Incubator/William "Billy" Smith. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 02:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William "Billy" Smith[edit]

William "Billy" Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Makes a claim that would easily satisfy WP:NSPORTS, but I'm unable to confirm that he exists at all. Happy to withdraw the nomination if proof of his existance and top level rugby league experience is able to be found. The common name and sharing it with an Australian RL player from the 60s/70s doesn't help. The-Pope (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. I'm happy to assume good faith. I know people do make up strange stuff but it looks like a proper person, so no reason for me to assume otherwise. Szzuk (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've often posted about the "spirit" of WP:NSPORTS, in that it, in my opinion, sets a level at which we can assume that sufficient refs to meet WP:GNG are likely to exist somewhere. However, it assumes that you have some ref, maybe not significant coverage, maybe not independent or maybe even not a reliable source, that at least backs up the claim of playing at that level. In this case, I can't even find that. Then we come to the whole WP:V, WP:BLP rules and the WP:URBLP/WP:URBLPR tasks - should they apply to a 105 year old? Again, the rules say yes, so the onus is to provide sources, not just accept it. The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle with the guidelines like you do. The thing with afd's is that they do sometimes 'allow' a keep. I said keep mostly because with such a common name and the time past, in my opinion refs are hiding in local newspapers and books that might never get on the net. I will have a look to see if I can find anything, if I were in St Helens I could go to the club and I reckon I'll find he played 200+ times and would pass Nsports quite comfortably. Szzuk (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the ref was good enough but others can confirm or otherwise. With players this old the burden of verifiability seems quite high. There must be hundreds of sports people who are worthy of a page but won't get one through lack of sources. Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no deadline, and verifiability is a key policy, waiting until there are decent sources isn't a problem. And lots of sports, Cricket, Australian rules football, NFL, most big soccer clubs and many more, have very extensive coverage of even much older players than this, both online and offline. The-Pope (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but recreate if verified. Unfortunately, people have written plausible-sounding hoax articles in the past. Verifiability is necessary to stop this, otherwise it's too easy to feed in disinformation if you know. Happy to assume the article creator acted in good faith unless proven otherwise, but that doesn't extend to giving disputed unverified info in Wikipedia the benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the ref was good enough to establish notability? Szzuk (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'd still say the lack of reliability of the source and uncertainty it's the same Smith still isn't enough to solve the verifiability problem. As it appears this is the best the internet has to offer, I think this is a problem that will only be solved with a trip to a local library. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been mentioned at the WikiProject Rugby league discussion page. The-Pope (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – If there is no source to verify his notability, I don't see why the article should be kept. We as a project are trying to take care of all the unreferenced BLPs, after all. If he can be shown to meet WP:NSPORTS, I'll switch to a keep. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Would pass NSPORTS and the rugby league WikiProject's own notability guidelines, but there are no references so should be deleted anyway. Just checked Rugby League Project for William Smith and counldn't find anything, although I'm sure the article was made in good faith and RLP is by no means an exhaustive source. GW (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet one of our core policies, WP:V. Also happy to switch to keep if a ref is found to verify that he played rugby league at the top level. Jenks24 (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Undecided - might be one to leave for a bit and come back to if nothing more reliable can be found. Looks promising though - good work those concerned. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found him. I googled for Foster (his friend) and Smith. He played and scored for Bradford Northern in the Yorkshire Cup Final in 1942. I will update the article with the ref. It'd be a bit mean spirited to delete him as the article is actually correct... [41] Szzuk (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the ref actually had his first name or it was an unusual surname, I'd agree with you, but just mentioning a Smith surely isn't sufficient.The-Pope (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reference found, although the page does need some work. Mattlore (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Saints Heritage Site the only two possibles I could find were [42] and [43] but neither are very definitive. Mattlore (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look for refs but can't find much else. Hmmm. Might ask on the bradford or st helens forums assuming there are some. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regardless of keep or delete, can we remove the WP:BLP tag from this article? He would be 105 if he were still alive, making it unlikely, but not impossible, that he continues to shuffle along this mortal coil. Pburka (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer my own question. According to Category:Living People we don't presume people are dead until 123 years. Presumably this is based on the longest known postdiluvian human lifespan. Pburka (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this does end up leaning towards delete can we instead make use of the Article Incubator? Mattlore (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate would be a reasonable thing to do. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. — Scientizzle 13:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bernie Mac Show[edit]

The Bernie Mac Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant hoax. We all know this is really Danny Bhoy's Normandy Park with a few words changed MCDoubleDefDP (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep Bad faith request for deletion. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Notman[edit]

Steven Notman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. PROD concern was: "Has not played in a fully professional league, so does not pass the football player notability guideline and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, so does not pass the general notability guideline." Since the PROD a few references have been added, but the only one that could be considered significant coverage was in the Border Telegraph, a local newspaper from what I can tell. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think. He's had a wee bit more coverage than that (this and this), but none of it particularly significant and Berwick don't satisfy the notability guidelines at WP:NFOOTY, so I think he probably has to go despite under-19 (or 21) appearances for Scotland. Cup appearances that seem to indicate he played for Hibs seem to be for Berwick - this source suggests he played for the first team but none of the standard databases agree, although I can find some reference to a pre-season friendly or two so they must be those appearances I think and he certainly warmed the bench against Celtic at least once. So it's probably a delete - not enough for GNG in my book just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. He has played no higher than the fourth tier of Scottish football. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is enough media coverage of Steven Notman to justify him having a place on the encyclopedia. He has featured in matchday squads for Hibernian in the Scottish premier League and CIS Insurance cup, has played a number of matches for Scotland at various age levels, played in a live Sky Sports match for Berwick Rangers against Celtic this season, and is very well known regionally in the Scottish Borders and beyond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.59.234 (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true. If you can show us where we can find reliable and verifiable sources to show that sort of thing then it would be grand. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cinergy Independent Film Services Pvt Ltd[edit]

Cinergy Independent Film Services Pvt Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources cited to show that this company is notable per WP:CORP. I originally tagged for no sources and notability, but author removed tags without explanation and without adding any sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. spa votes cary very littke weight and there appears to be no sourcing on which to hang a merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USA Publications[edit]

USA Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable student publication. Google hits is 8 including Wikipedia results. Revision before I removed some non-notable sections (I thought it was notable then) Moray An Par (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to meet the guidelines of WP:GNG. There is already some discussion of the corps in the article for the paper they publish, and other than that paper, they do not seem to do much that is anything close to noteworthy. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A student newspaper. I remember them well, universally non notable. Szzuk (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to University of San Agustin. No notability independent of the university, but potentially a worthwhile element of the university article. --Orlady (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. I would like to defend our school publication's page. We are still compiling the whole article. As to our references, we are doing our best to look for valid references. Our alumni has reached different parts of the world; but since the USA Publications page in Wikipedia is new, of course we still have a low number of hits. Thank you for understanding. Adrian attacks. 14 May 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Then please do defend it. Please tell us how it agrees with the notability guidelines. Moray An Par (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Augustinian Mirror should be redirected in this page. Since the USA Publications is the publisher of The Augustinian Mirror, I would like to suggest that the latter page be nominated for deletion and that the USA Publications page remain. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian attacks (talk • contribs) 08:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed the page as per your request. The discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Augustinian Mirror. Szzuk (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. First, I would like to thank Szzuk for nominating The Augustinian Mirror Page for deletion. The USA Publications should remain a page. I have already merged the information and references from The Augustinian Mirror page with the USA Publications page. I am also trying to compile more references so that the data is the page will be verifiable. Again, Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian attacks (talk • contribs) 08:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. As to notability, the materials published by the USA Publications reach selected schools throughout the country, the National Library of the Philippines, the Vatican (as stated in the article). Some alumni are also notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian attacks (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't forget to sign your comments. That is adding four tildes (~~~~) after your statements. As for your sources, please present them soon or your contributions might go to waste when an administrator determines that this discussion has reached consensus. As for the alumni, notability is not inheritable per WP:INHERIT. Reading other invalid reasons for notability in that page might also interest you. Moray An Par (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I acknowledge what Moray An Par has to say. Our publication will do its best to provide non-bias information and quality references soon. The publication, I believe meets WP:NGO standards since the publication won national competitions in the past. The publication also conducts community works that lead to national development.Adrian attacks (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark[edit]

Princess Maria-Olympia of Greece and Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Episode #5 in the Great Greek Revolution in Wikipedia – a revolution that comes rather late, given that the Greek Monarchy was formally abolished by plebiscite in 1974 and at least as of as of 2007 it was clear that not all Pokémon characters are notable. As for her younger siblings, this article does not claim notability and I could find no evidence that she is notable. Per our notability guidelines (the real ones, not the imaginary ones sometimes mentioned by Wikipedia's contingent of royalty watchers), just being the grand child of a deposed monarch does not make someone notable. Precedents:

WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark

WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark

WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark

WP:Articles for deletion/Prince Aristidis-Stavros of Greece and Denmark

Follow the links if you want to see policy-based arguments or heated discussions. Hans Adler 09:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Hans Adler 09:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The culture of stamp- and Pokémon-collecting in Wikipedia is not the subject's fault. I have seen photos of her, on which she looks like a nice and sensible teenage girl. I have no reason to insult her and I don't think I have done that. And of course the inevitable outcome of this AfD will not prevent anyone from creating a proper article for her if and when she becomes notable. But for the moment we fortunately don't have reason to assume that she will become a notorious socialite. Hans Adler 15:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a princess of more than one country and so her standing in Greece is not vital. She is notable, being covered in detail in sources such as Real Princesses. Pokemon seem quite irrelevant - the only reason for mentioning them seems to be to insult the subject. It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a forum and so the nominator should not being using this as a platform for his anti-royalist views. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and noting that the "source" cited above by C.W. is not the type of reliable coverage we would need to establish notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the precedents cited by the nom under which the articles about all of her brothers were deleted. However, this deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if she becomes notable in the future (for example, as the kind of socialite frequently featured in Vanity Fair (magazine)). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per Metrpolitan90's comment.IrishStephen (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece should suffice here.--Scott Mac 16:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many, although not all, Wikiepdians have long felt that all royalty are notable automatically (including me). In this case, however, a merger to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece probably should be good enough compromise for all of these articles. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mondo (film)[edit]

Mondo (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No verifiable sources for this article. The only sources the article cites are self-published sources (see WP:SPS). I have tried doing searches, but all that I can find are more self-published sources, and no verifiable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator needs to know that there exists a site named IMDB. And the references cited are not self published sources, but rather an article from the San Francisco Chronicle and IMDB for its plot synopsis. I think one can find more writeups on warfares such as this than the article pages, going by the way this nominator is hellbent on raising such alarms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's claim that the citations are insufficient would then have to call for deletion of many other wikipedia pages for movies which cite only their IMDB pages and sometimes, rotten tomatoes pages as reference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Full length reviews in multiple sources, including NYT, NY Daily News, and boston globe. Please read WP:BEFORE ^Bongo_matic 10:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough of reliable references.--Diameter (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well--and if the nominator doesn't withdraw soon, then I call for SNOW. Thanks Bongo, and thanks MQS also, Drmies (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy SNOW Keep per a deletion nomination that seems to unfortunately show a lack of WP:BEFORE. It was not the least bit difficult to find that this film has had international distribution and significant coverage in multiple of multiple of reliable sources [44] over a many-years period. We do not delete notable topics out of a nominator's lack of diligent before. I urge the nominator to re-familiarize himself with WP:DEL#REASON, WP:DEL#CONTENT, and WP:DEL#PROCESSES Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Inks.LWC (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. Raj Rao[edit]

R. Raj Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The author is not notable per WP:AUTHOR. The only award he has received is a newly created award which I could find nothing about on the Internet other than on pages about the author himself. The article claims he is a "leading" gay rights activist in India, but the source makes no such claim. It is my view that the subject fails the qualifications of WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR Inks.LWC (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Keep" added by Drmies--that's how I read this contribution. The nominator needs some reworking on his definitions. Googling 'Quebec-India Awards' brings this link, <http://mediarelations.concordia.ca/pressreleases/archives/2008/01/quebecindia_visiting_scholar_a.php> at the very first page. As anyone can infer, this is an academic program, and one of the references in the wiki page, <http://cjournal.concordia.ca/archives/20080214/international_interdisciplinarity.php>, was infact an article on him and the other candidate who was selected for the award that year. And on his definitions of 'leading', kindly check the reference for that. With the amount of gay activism that is on in India, for an individual who has started a coursework on Queer studies in a very conservative Pune University and his contributions to the queer scene, that reference was lauding the same, and rightly so. The nominator is nothing less than a vandal in raising such false alarms without proper verification, leave aside the intention to improve the article, which should be his purpose! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 09:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Keep" added by Drmies--that's how I read this contribution. He is indeed a leading gay rights activist. If you want some other source also quoting the same please visit penguins author profile! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafish9 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Manorathan (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable figure enough to be kept in wiki.The award isn't an acclaimed award and there are thousands of authors in penguin.A publisher uploads profile given by it's authors.--117.211.84.226 (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent expansion. Article really needs a lot of cleanup, but the writer is clearly notable. I urge the nominator and the IP to look at it again and perhaps allow the nomination to be withdrawn. Note to article creator: perhaps the nominator got it wrong, but please assume good faith. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author clearly notable in India, therefore article is notable. HairyWombat 15:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable now that its sources have been upgraded. There are certainly "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" if you bother to look around. There's enough material to expand the entry, including his own characterization of himself as not an activist these days but more an engaged writer. Bmclaughlin9 (talk)

Keep and props to those who practiced diligent WP:BEFORE. Being sourcably notable in India is perfectly fine with en.Wikipeda. Article will benefit from additional cleanup, but notable topics rarely merit deletion because they simply need a little attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inks.LWC (talk • contribs) 21:03, May 16, 2011

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Sherwin[edit]

Robert Sherwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article written by the son of the subject. No evidence of notability. Refs are poor, mostly from his own company or from Wikipedia. Dmol (talk) 08:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I un-tagged this as a speedy delete. I hesitated because he won a Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award. However, looking at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) this is not enough to establish notability--he hasn't "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" or "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". He doesn't have any other notability assertions, so, delete. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs substantial work, and it appears there is a COI issue with much of the content. That said, Sherwin appears to satsify WP:GNG based on his having received non-trivial coverage in mainstream media. Examples include: (1) Sherwin Receives $1,000 Scholarship, The Evening News - Apr 12, 1973; (2) Army's Sherwin Is Top Shorty, The Free Lance-Star - Mar 27, 1973; (3) Sherwin Receives Short Man Honor, Gadsden Times - Mar 28, 1973; (4) Named Recipient, The Robesonian, March 27, 1973. Cbl62 (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed much of the unnecessary, unsourced and COI material. I've also added a number of additional sources to the article. This appears to be a clear keep at this point. Cbl62 (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Pomeroy Naismith Award makes him notable from a college basketball standpoint. Rikster2 (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rikster2. He was the recipient of a national award at the highest level of amateur basketball in the United States (an award presented by the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, no less). I'll admit the creator should have been more discreet about being related to Robert Sherwin as to avoid COI, but at the end of the day the man in question satisfies GNG as well as college athlete notability criteria. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes by having won the Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award, a major college basketball award. —Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equipo 2[edit]

Equipo 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced article about a minor film project of dubious notability. Part of a self-promotional "walled garden" around an individual called José-María Siles, all created by members of the same sockfarm. (See above Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anews and older Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José-María Siles). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no refs, never will be. Szzuk (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Some improvements were made. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AnandTech[edit]

AnandTech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article beset by so many problems (see giant template) that it's probably best deleted. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, with millions of unique visitors. I've used it myself. So the article is crap, that isn't a reason to delete, it needs fixing. Szzuk (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not for cleanup. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Especially for NPOV/SPAM issues. Take the unsourced lead sentence for instance "AnandTech is one of the largest online computer hardware journals in the English-speaking world." What does that even mean? Largest number of articles, readers, or what? The only sourced statement in this entire article is that it has a large number of users and forum posts. (And it's not large compared to Facebook in that respect.) Presumably forum posts don't count as articles, and users don't count as authors. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. You didn't bother to check whether this is a notably website yourself and you're wasting our time. Szzuk (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:BEFORE and the deletion policy. Perhaps we need to look into making WP:BEFORE a guideline or maybe even part of the deletion policy itself?

Keep I have added a paragraph with quotes from independent experts such as Leo Laporte and Paul McFedries describing AnandTech, and have backed up those quotes with four references from independent, reliable sources demonstrating this website's notability. Cullen328 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can as well be merged, The result is not a delete, so closing this. Tone 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Pinell[edit]

Hugo Pinell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fluff article about marginally notable felon. More pertinent details surrounding his notability exist in several parent articles. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to San Quentin Six. Pinell was involved in one of the longest and most notable trials in California history, however, I don't think he has any mainstream notability outside the escape attempt and the subsequent trial. Mini-biographies of the various inmates should be hosted at San Quentin Six. Location (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The details of why is prison don't really fit in the San Quentin Six page. He is widely mentioned in news stories (74 Ghits), books (160) and articles (15), which are enough to sustain notability. Several of these appear to have longer sections on him (e.g. [45] but unfortunately I don't have access to the full book. Finally, I would suggest that the use of the term like fluff article shows a certain lack of detachment in the nominator, whose contributions appear to be largely restricted to attempting to defend right wing figures and attacking left wing ones, which leads me to worry a little a bit bias. Francis Bond (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF. I would be more than happy to defend any edit I have made. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Francis Bond.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 28 April 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, Baseball Watcher 03:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why the repeated relisting when nobody but the nominator has called for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara[edit]

List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:NOTDIR, which prohibits "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." I fail to see how being called "Sarah or Sara" is a significant enough connection between these people for there to be a listing of them. A listing of all people named Sarah would be too long to be navigationally useful, and unlikely to be used. Special:PrefixIndex/Sarah and Special:PrefixIndex/Sara can be used to list all the people named Sarah/Sara who have articles, and do not require to be updated. Anthem of joy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Anthem of joy (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and turn into a disambiguation page (or merge with one if one already exists). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only persons known by the name Sarah alone (cf. "Elvis") should be on the disambiguation page Sarah (disambiguation), see MOS:DABNAME. These full names are mostly not ambiguous, and any that are should have separate DAB pages like Sarah Thomas. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Sarah (given name). Apparently split on 15 December 2008 (along with List of fictional characters named Sarah or Sara, also at AfD), but no edit summary was used. See [46] --Tothwolf (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge MBisanz ^talk 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tothwolf. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and DO NOT Merge - per original nomination, has no utility and violates NOT#DIR with no justification. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a directory of loose items around a random name. That's what search engines are for - frankieMR (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete prohibited list per WP:NOTDIR. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I used to argue for lists of most notable people with a name, within Anthroponymy articles; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 6 if you can be bothered. Now I acknowledge that popular names result in a hopeless case that can never be comprehensive, nor have consensus on selection. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Sosnowski[edit]

David J. Sosnowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability, almost completely unsourced (there's one link to his web site). WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up anything useful -- only 81 Ghits (page 9 is the last one), nothing in GNews or GScholar. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've failed to find any mention of him or his work in reliable independent sources, let alone in-depth or significant coverage. CDs and scores are self-published, and observe the upper left hand side of his website. Below his one-sentence 'biography' we find: "See the Wikipedia article here for more on David Sosnowski." Comprehensively fails the criteria at WP:COMPOSER and WP:BIO and blatant self-promotion. Voceditenore (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Composers. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Voceditenore. Couldn't have said it better.4meter4 (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yup, this is an attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing I wonder is how this article stayed up for six years. Sosnowski has gained far more than his rightful share of publicity through it, and should be very grateful that it took this long for him to be "caught". Chillowack (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant self-promotion. Perhaps it has escaped attention so far because of confusion with the novelist David Sosnowski, though frankly the subject of that article doesn't look overly noteworthy, either.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His WP article is refreshingly terse but the novelist would probably pass as AfD See [47]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Efforts to improve the article are recently in progress. Perhaps it would be indicated to wait and see what develops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.183.38 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will run until the 20th -- you have that long to demonstrate that the article fits into the policies and guidelines here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced (except for link to his website) vanity publication.--Hokeman (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In email contact with the subject of the article seeking further detail, he declined to provide assistance, commenting: "While the gesture is kindly appreciated, I cannot think of any surpassing reason I would belong in an encyclopedia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.183.38 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Sosnowski himself doesn't feel he deserves a Wikipedia page, then whoever is frantically adding Notes and References at the end of the article might wish to reconsider the effort. Chillowack (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted by Voceditenore (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)> Chillowack (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, Withdrawn by nominator. Safiel (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of drum makes[edit]

List of drum makes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As I propose this AfD, I am not hell bent on having this article deleted, but as I reviewed it, I was wondering "Do we need this list?" There are existing lists on Guitars and Flutes that have evidently never been PROD'ed or AfD'd, but in their cases, at least some of the companies on the list had separate articles, which is not the case with this article. There does not seem to be an encyclopedic point or purpose with this list. Again not hell bent on deleting this, but I think a discussion is warranted. Safiel (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject seems clearly notable - just think of all the reviews in publications like Drum Magazine. Also, some of the companies listed are also clearly notable, e.g. Yamaha Drums. However, at the moment it looks like it fails WP:DIRECTORY. I think the way to fix this should be to add prose, rather than deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia includes lots of lists - some of which are far more specialised than this:- see List of timpani manufacturers or List of marimba manufacturers. It states it is a list, so the only prose neede would be a one or 2 line introduction - it does need Wikifying - with internal links, removal of random use of CAPITALS, etc. Arjayay (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy with the instruction that it is to be reduced to those makes which already have articles here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the suggestion that the list should only include makers who already have an article. This is not a requirement on other lists e.g. List of timpani manufacturers or List of marimba manufacturers. Happy to agree that makers who do not have already an article need a WP:RS Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is a very new article, and it has actually gone a long way in a very short period of time. I agree with your sentiment, but there actually already IS a source for the complete list at the bottom of the page. Part of the problem may be that this AFD was started just 5 hours after the article was created. I am assuming good faith on the AFD, I just think the nom is mistaken in his assumption. The nom admits in the actual nomination that he isn't sure "if we need this", which technically, isn't a valid reason to start an AFD to begin with. The basic premise of the nom is to just test the waters, which again, is not the best reasons to nominate for AFD. Good faith, absolutely, but not necessarily the best reasons to nom. The article is actually moving along and getting improved at a rate much faster than the majority of articles on Wikipedia. I tagged it one minute after creation (refs) which was promptly fixed. Seriously, this is a huge list, so I'm not disappointed with the effort that has been put into it so far. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I've been tagging and following it as it has developed, and it is moving along fine. This is a very reasonable use of lists, it is being actively sourced, and the subject matter is perfectly notable. And there is no criteria that requires that the list contain only items that have articles here. To the contrary, it wouldn't make much sense at all as clearly there are many other articles that need creating. As long as the list is properly sourced, this would be draconian. There is no WP:DEADLINE, and it can be improved over time. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal by Nominator I am going to withdraw this nomination, as clearly the consensus will be for keep. I was kind of hesitating to nominate it in the first place, as can probably be inferred from my remarks in my original nomination. Anyhow, I will go ahead and close this. Safiel (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee killer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Yankee killer

Articles for deletion/Yankee killer (2nd nomination)

Yankee killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is not a notable term. Whenever someone seems to do well against the Yankees, some beat writer invariably calls him a "Yankee killer", but there is no definition of what makes one a "Yankee killer". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does have an astonishingly high number of references in ghits, gnews, gbooks, and seems to have been a common name for some ballplayers such as Frank Lary[48][49] and Lew Burdette[50] among others. There is a 2003 NY Post article here about "The Yankee Killers", which describes what it is all about.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is just about the expression "Yankee killer." There is no real information on what a Yankee killer is like, although I am sure they are good baseball players. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per concerns about Wikipedia being a dictionary. Additionally, every team in baseball has players that they consider to be "Team Killers." This phenomenon is hardly limited to the Yankees. And, for all I know, the phenomenon is not even limited to baseball (I'm a baseball fan to the exclusion of most other sports). Finally, I have no idea why there needs to be a separate article on this -- if indeed the content ought to exist in the first place. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of baseball (Y) It is pretty much a a dictionary definition, but it's for a term that has been quite popular in the baseball press. We have a place for such things. -Dewelar (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely support that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what exception to the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" argument the "Glossary of Baseball" article falls under, for those who think such an argument might have any applicability to this phrase -- which has not only a dictionary definition (already), but also a contextual discussion. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question best asked/researched at WikiProject Glossaries. There's been quite a bit of discussion about this over the years. -Dewelar (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked it here was that I'm puzzled as to how editors here can apply that principle to one and not the other, and was wondering what their thinking was.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, what you're really asking is "why are lists treated differently than articles?" How much time have you got ;-) ? -Dewelar (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just unfamiliar with a rule that says that this would be fine embedded in a glossary but not in an article. I'm not sure that NOTADICTIONARY applies in the first place, given the contextual and other treatment of the term in the article, but I'm trying to get at the rationale that is inspiring those that are troubled by the entire bit as an article, but not troubled by the entire bit being in the glossary. I'm missing something -- to me, it seems a distinction without a difference; to my knowledge we apply the same notability rules to both.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect the entirety of the article to be merged. Probably no more than the first sentence. -Dewelar (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What encyclopaedic articles afford, and dictionary articles do not, is the rich background and history that this article contains. It is the short, nothing-more, dictionary explanations that the rule seeks to shunt to wiktionary. The more fulsome treatment we have here, however, is what differentiates it from wiktionary.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is indeed the applicable guideline. But we have to read beyond the title. As the guideline states: "encyclopedias contain definitions." The rule cautions against one-word definitions, and the like. But it makes quite clear that "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description ... but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns." That describes the difference. Here, the article already reflects a bevy of facts about its usage; it is not by any means limited to one-word definitions and linguistic concerns. It is just the sort of article that the guideline indicates is appropriate for wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What the article contains, beyond the definition itself, is a list of examples that demonstrate the definition. That doesn't qualify as "other types of information". -Dewelar (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline tells us which definitions are appropriate for wp. And which are not. The contrast under the guideline is between a) bare definitions, such as "killer -- someone who kills"; and b) encyclopedia articles, which begin with a definition and description of the topic, but "provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns. A definition aims to describe or delimit the meaning of some term." This clearly goes beyond the bare definition. It as the guideline calls for provides "other types of information about the topic as well". The one sentence you are in favor of -- that is the bare definition, that is not appropriate for wp. The 90 per cent of the article that you would delete -- that is replete with all the facts -- as distinct from the "linquistic concerns" -- that make it appropriate for wp.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the MoS entry on types of lists, which states "Glossaries contain a small working vocabulary and definitions for important, unique or frequently encountered concepts, usually including idioms or metaphors particular to a subject area." Thus, bare definitions are exactly what a glossary is meant to contain. -Dewelar (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, Dewelar. If this were merely a bare one-sentence definition (rather than the much more fact-rich article that it is), I now understand that that would be a good place to park it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I do think you'd agree, also, that it would be better than deleting it outright, which is what I would support if the merging concept is rejected. As I mentioned, my opinion is that all the facts present are simply supportive of the definition and not providing any additional substance; i.e., it presents statistical and anecdotal evidence of why certain players were called "Yankee killer" rather than focusing on the notability of the nickname itself. Such information should be merged to the articles for the individual players (which could, perhaps, be linked in the glossary entry) rather than used to pad out this article to make it look like more than it is. -Dewelar (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- I agree that deletion is especially uncalled for, and more draconian. I would also note that the nom's appropriate and accurate complaint in the nomination about the article lacking a definition has now been recognized and addressed. My view (and where we differ) is that the usage history facts and the like that are in the article are precisely the sort of "other types of information about the topic as well" called for by the guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, even on Wikipedia, reasonable people are allowed to disagree ;-) . -Dewelar (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I recognize that we've had a somewhat scattered response to this AFD nom so far. One D, one d/m, one m, and one keep. Much has to do with a reading of wp:wikipediaisnotadictionary, and a determination as to whether the definitions that that guideline indicates are appropriate include this one. Accordingly, I've left word at that guideline page talkpage, as well as a rescue tag. Hopefully, further views will provide a clearer consensus in one direction or another.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Read the titles of the newspaper articles that appear in the first page of results. Yankee Killer is a real thing, and it gets coverage. This isn't just a brief definition either, but an entire article about the term. Dream Focus 00:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG in failing to have multiple sources each with significant coverage to demonstrate notability of the term Yankee killer. Many of the sources usage of the term is WP:ROUTINE, not going into any in-depth coverage of the player's history of being a "Yankee killer" or putting it into historical context with other players. The use of the term is mostly a generic moniker, adding killer after an opponent's name, and contains no obvious notability. Simply looking at WP:GOOGLEHITS without looking at the quality of the results is not justification for keeping an article. —Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG -- sources do not "address the subject directly in detail". This term seems to be simply a convenient 'hook' for discussing pitchers that did particularly well against the Yankees. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boston Red Sox. Actually we should probably delete it: clearly it exists, but I don't think the concept itself has gotten enough detailed coverage to justify a stand-alone article. We could note on the individual players pages that sportswriters have described them as such though. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchana (2011 Kannada film)[edit]

Kanchana (2011 Kannada film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable film not yet filming. Fails WP:NOTFILM. PROD removed by article creator. ttonyb (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, no reliable sources to verify anything in the article. No prejudice against re-creation once the film is released. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete filming hasnt begin yet.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD A7. The article did not make any particular claims of notability.. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Theodossi[edit]

Nick Theodossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The only claim of notability in the article is, "Nick is also well known for his passion with the Australian Football League (AFL)." which is uncited and of questionable notability. Otherwise his affiliation with the car dealership does not confer notability WP:INHERIT, even if the car dealership is notable (which it is certainly not clear it is). ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable buisnessperson and per nom. Doh5678 Talk 06:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LightStream[edit]

LightStream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Page contains little or no information LES 953 (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Article is about a former business (current brand?) that made computer networking equipment. The business was acquired by Cisco in the mid-1990s. Google News has a fair amount of press release hits, mostly announcing the acquisition or new products. Books entries seem similar, and are again mostly from 1993-1997. All of this goes to show you that this kind of business has to make a particularly strong showing to establish long term historical notability, and that a flurry of minor coverage of products in the years it was independently active should not be enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. If the business passes notability, being defunct doesn't matter. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Smerdis of Tlön: no significant coverage, nothing of encyclopedic value to add to the article.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be helpful if someone would cite the best of the refs for this company. There have been bands, water disinfection companies, and movie companies with the same or similar names, so Google News archive is a bit confusing. Press coverage does not have to continue to the present for an entity to be notable. Was there ever multiple instances of significant coverage of the subject of this article in reliable and independent sources? Edison (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Active or defunct, notability is not temporary. Long term historical notability is a laughable thought exercise, not a criteria for inclusion set by policy. riffic (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on a cursory check for sources, two of which I've added to the article as citations. riffic (talk) 03:56, 28 April 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, Baseball Watcher 03:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No historical value, not enough notability facts other than being acquire by a notable company and notability is not inherited; Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources citing BBN Technologies being a founding player advances a certain notability that any other run of the mill company couldn't claim. riffic (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Principle of Moments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principle Of Moments Tour[edit]

Principle Of Moments Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment your realise of course that a tour in 1983 is not going to have any hits in gnews, I do note that google does have 9,000+ hits though its dominated by memorablia sales. Tours are an acceptable daughter aricle of artist and group articles, rather than delete a merge/redirect is a reasonable alternative uder such circumstances Gnan garra 09:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gnews has newspaper coverage from even before 1900. WP:GOOGLEHITS hardly establishes notability. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
point taken, tried an alternatve search on Robert Plant, guess what there's 143 articles between July - Dec 1983 coincidentially while the tour was on. Gnan garra 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Rolling Stone September 1983 has an article and there are others behind pay per view walls if one searches for Robert Plant instead, Rolling Stone article describes Principle of Moments Tour as Plants declaration of independence from the past strong words from the foremost music magazine. Then in 1984 in Melbourne The Age had an article on the show there. Gnan garra 14:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Principle of Moments, the album Plant toured in support of, per recent AFD outcomes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:07, 28 April 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, Baseball Watcher 03:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. While WP:NOTDIR and WP:CONCERT apply, some mention is deserved based on the notability of the artist, and tours are most often in support of a specific album release. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Linkin Park. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xero (Linkin Park)[edit]

Xero (Linkin Park) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Various versions of this article have already existed - two were deleted and one was redirected to Linkin Park (at least), but someone keeps recreating it under different names. You can see that in the article's current title - the word "album" is missing because an article with that word in the title has already been redirected. The same has happened for several articles about the band Xero, which have also been deleted or redirected to who that band is now - Linkin Park. For this article, there are no sources to be found that confer notability on this demo album, and the article that keeps getting recreated is actually a shallow re-hash of the band's history during that time period, which is already discussed at the Linkin Park article. Recommend that everything related to Xero and this demo album be salted as well. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - If you look at the article history it appears that I created it. I didn't, but just ended up as the first editor of THIS version of the article after a whole bunch of deletions, moves, and redirects. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as noted above by nom, there was a cut and paste move from Xero (Linkin Park album) [51] to this article [52] by 70.105.172.220. If this article is kept this needs to be fixed. Edgepedia (talk) 12:19, 28 April 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't know if it's going to end or if someone is just going to keep recreating it, but we can at least have (yet) another redirect to Linkin Park. There's no reason for a band's previous name to have it's own article (other than rare occasions). Bkid ^{My talk}/_Contribs 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It looks like nobody else will vote on this one, but I strongly suggest that redirect is not the solution here, because such a thing has already been done multiple times, as discussed above. An admin should consider some stronger action to prevent these Xero articles from being recreated yet again. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classical liberalism (political parties)[edit]

Classical liberalism (political parties) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Original research. There is no source provided that defines or lists classical liberal parties, and the list seems to overlap with Conservative liberalism#Conservative-liberal parties worldwide and List of libertarian political parties. The sources provided for each party are links to their official websites, but a cursory glance shows that only one, the relatively new and minor Classical Liberal Party (Sweden), makes any claim to being a classical liberal party. TFD (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:NPOV. If you search using synonyms of classical liberalism such as lassiez faire, free markets, minarchism, you will find that there is backing for the platform of these parties. Classical liberalism is clearly defined and all the parties on this list are consistent with the subject (unlike the poorly written libertarian and conservative liberal lists). I think if (per consensus) we are going to build a encyclopedia that makes sense, we need to eliminate overlap between topics as much as possible. For a given topic, having one Master list (in this case liberalism) and then concisely defined branch lists (if the topic is broad enough, which this one definitely is: see Social liberalism for the differences), it would greatly improve the readability of topics.-- Novus Orator 04:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too tendentious and so contrary to WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article sounds completely like original research and POV. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch EP[edit]

Dispatch EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Still being recorded, tentative release date Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 30 April 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) 01:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The albums will be released on May 17 on iTunes; see [53] for example. Discussion closed. --Neodop 19:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neodop (talk • contribs)

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) 00:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EP has been released: [54], [55], [56] (4th paragraph).

What policy did this violate in the first place? There are plenty of articles out there about upcoming albums, .

Skiasaurus (skē’ ə sôr’ əs) 00:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those ones have plenty of sourcing too, while this has a YouTube video. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoyoshi Miyazaki[edit]

Tomoyoshi Miyazaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:N Unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this video game developer in order to evidence notability under WP:BASIC. I've attempted searches both in English and Japanese, but the latter using automated translation, so additional sourcing welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 07:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I'm an anonymous user, I don't think this page should be deleted. Already the one for Masaya Hashimoto is gone and I can't find it on Google cache, and now you're trying to remove this one. it's a valuable part of gaming history and the page should stay. Wikipedia's policy of randomly deleting stuff on a whim makes me hate this site. You can quote official policy all you like, but your collection of so called editors are a bunch of fringe nutcases who treat this site like their own personal lobotomy project. It's supposed to be a collection of information but there is a relentless mad rush by wannabe gung-ho editors who like to delete with little care in the world.

I doubt this is going to change anyone's mind, you're all inept I think anyway, but I wanted to commit this to digital print: Leave the Tomoyoshi Miyazaki page alone, it has already proved immensely useful for me, in pointing me in the right direction for additional research. Although I never use Wikipedia as a primary source, the page on T Miyazaki highlighted something I was unaware of, and therefor allowed me to go on and find primary sources for related information.

Without this page, acting as a beacon, I would never have been able to progress further, indeed I would have been oblivious to certain things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.221.167 (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Wikipedia is not a primary source. It's a tertiary source. Marasmusine (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Indeed, Wikipedia is not a primary source, but it is a primary reference, to solidify your thoughts or writings a further research is needed, but nobody understands that. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to anonymous user. Firstly, all opinions are welcome, anonymous or otherwise. Secondly, the fact that you or anyone else would use a page as a primary reference is exactly why this page is up for deletion. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable or it is completely useless because there is no way to know if it is correct. Wrong information is much more dangerous than no information. Lastly, why not register and get a username? J04n(talk page) 10:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 11:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note It's me, the anon from before. As I stated in my previous post, I do NOT use Wikipedia as a primary source. I use Wikipedia as a jumping off point to then find primary sources. Private research isn't allowed on Wikipedia, and that's fine, you can source me when my piece is published, but my point is this: the pages here gave me the names of two developers. From there I went through my contacts list until I found people who I could contact and ask about them. Plus I searched other online sources, including a Square-Enix staff database. Without this Wiki page I would not have even known what what to check. As for sources, the Japanese wiki pages are still up: ja:宮崎友好, ja:橋本昌哉

In addition, this page on HG101 references the two creators. Not sure if it's good enough, some articles on Wikipedia cite that site as a source.

http://hardcoregaming101.net/quintet/quintet.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.222.98 (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find third-party reliable references to raise its notability factor. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced BLP. nothing in gnews for English. unless someone finds substantial coverage in Japanese it's delete. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Comparelli[edit]

Peter Comparelli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

a stub that has existed over 3 years. fails WP:CREATIVE as a journalist and WP:BIO. simply being an editor in chief does not guarantee notability. Lacks indepth coverage [57] LibStar (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 30 April 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, 6 May 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) 00:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Love (humorist)[edit]

Jason Love (humorist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Smarmy bio or autobio (before cleanup) of a non-notable humorist whose column and cartoon are each carried by a handful of papers. Orange Mike | Talk 01:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 30 April 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) 01:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn’t seem to be raising much of an interest either for or against, does he? It certainly looked like a self-bio as the tone was not encyclopaedic by any means before the mass edits. What drew my attention to this article was his name in List of Cartoonists being placed in the Notable cartoonists. He is not that notable to be in with such famous people and smacked of big headedness. His cartoons could allow him to be listed in the ‘Cartoonists of single-panel gag cartoons’. I personally look for something that stands someone out for an article, pointers being if they have a following, or are connected to something etc that would be of interest to a reader or someone that would look up this person. This “humorist” is very borderline for an article and a few cartoons in a couple of publications does not warrant immediate inclusion, in my opinion. --BSTemple (talk) 11:21, 6 May 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) 00:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss him. The sources currently in the article verify the information is true, but none of them are really independent of him. They are either things he has published or interviews with him. As far as I can find no one has written about him. GB fan (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeadZones.com[edit]

DeadZones.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Only passing mentions in "sources", and they mention a different website than the name of the article anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable website, the article's main contributor seems to be closely related to the subject (WP:OWN, so the article is filled with POV and OR statements, the user refrain from accepting any possibility of the deletion of the article and has contested PROD and CSD nominations before. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Eduemoni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazymonkey1123 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage as required by WP:ORG. --Muhandes (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The analysis of sources and policy by Cunard is thorough and compellinga and has not been refuted by the keep votes. The delete votes are the majority and city policy and both keep votes arguments have been refuted by Cunard Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Fields[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Alexis Fields

Articles for deletion/Alexis Fields (2nd nomination)

Alexis Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 29. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Obviously, since I was the one that asked that the subject be re-created. Actress had has ample roles in notable television series to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Quasy Boy 04:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she has had ongoing roles in several notable TV series, so she passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what WP:ENTERTAINER says. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using the search tools above, we get a ton of books with passing references, often noting that she is the sister of Kim Fields. The news results are all about the show, with her just being mentioned in passing. Does not pass our notability guidelines based on the lack of sources that discuss her in-depth. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing put passing mentions. ENTERTAINER calls for significant roles, since no one wants to right or discuss these roles and the person performing them it seems pretty clear they are insignificant. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources do not cover Alexis Fields in sufficient depth to establish notability. Analysis of the sources in the article:

1. "Alexis Fields Biography". Film Reference. Retrieved April 21, 2011. – a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 93#filmreference.com concluded that Filmreference.com is not a reliable source because it does not have editorial oversight. The discussion also revealed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources states that Film Reference is "[n]ot a reliable source for article use; use only for research purposes".
2. Historical dictionary of African-American television By Kathleen Fearn-Banks - via Google Books – this source is a directory listing. Directory entries do not establish notability because they are not as calculated and selective as sources that purposefully delve into a specific topic.
3. A contemporary classic, `Roc' returns with love, laughs and dose of reality - The Baltimore Sun, Author: David Zurawik Date: Aug 31, 1993 – the subject receives a passing mention: "The 11-year-old, Sheila (Alexis Fields), is the daughter of Calvin (Heavy D)." Judging by the article's content, the subject receives tangentional coverage.
4. The complete directory to prime time network and cable TV shows, 1946-present By Tim Brooks, Earle Marsh via Google Books – this is trivial coverage, in that the subject is mentioned only in the cast list.
5. Who Was Who on TV, Volume 3 By Norman Chance - via Google Books – like #4, the subject is mentioned only in the cast list.
6. Frame by Frame Three By Audrey T. McCluskey - via Google Books – the subject is mentioned twice, once in a parenthetical to the film character she plays and second in the cast list. These passing mentions are not the "significant coverage" required at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
7. Siblings Who are Also Celebrities - Jet issue Jan 19, 1998 - Page 56 – the subject's sole mention is in the photo caption: "Alexis Fields is following in the footsteps of her famous big sister Kim Fields Freeman."
8. Encyclopedia of African American actresses in film and television By Bob McCann - via Google Books – the article is mostly about the subject's sister. The subject's sole mention is "Her sister [Kim Field's sister] is actress Alexis Fields, who was a cast member on Sister, Sister."
9. IT’S A BABY GIRL FOR ACTRESS ALEXIS FIELDS (EXCLUSIVE) Submitted by blackcelebritykids on November 6, 2008 at 2:21 pm – this website is like an unreliable blog and the two-sentence coverage here is trivial.
10. Wow, you know more than I remember. - Alexis Fields Twitter account – the subject's Twitter account is not a third-party reliable source.
11. FIRST PICTURE OF KAYCIE JAE (ALEXIS FIELDS’ DAUGHTER) Submitted by blackcelebritykids on November 12, 2008 at 5:16 pm – see #9.
12. Bianculli, David (1999-03-02). "Sitcoms Pay Homage To Two Tv Classics". New York Daily News. Retrieved 2011-04-18. – the subject receives only a passing mention: "Sheryl Lee Ralph (Dee) plays the choreographer of the sizzling new show Ricky is mounting at the Tropicana Club, and guest star Alexis Fields plays Lola Vavoom, the sexy star act Lucy decides to impersonate. These two women, and Brandy, have most of the fun in this sketch." Passing mentions do not establish notability.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states:
People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers (WP:ENTERTAINER) states:
Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.
The subject does not pass the first criterion because judging by the sources provided here, the roles she has played are minor. There are no sources that verify whether she passes criterion 2 or criterion 3.
The references are either primary sources or passing mentions, neither of which enable Alexis Fields to pass Wikipedia:Notability. A Google News Archive search returns directory-type mentions or unrelated results. Likewise, a Google Books search also returns trivial mentions.
I appreciate the work QuasyBoy (talk · contribs) has spent crafting this article and responding to the arguments for deletion at the deletion review. However, because the sources lack the depth and reliability mandated by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, this article must be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Issues solved. A disambig is ok. Tone 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ameur[edit]

Ameur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only one link inculded in this disambig. page. Wilbysuffolk talk 05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mammar Ameur. Seems to be a reasonable redirect. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There is no need have a disambiguation page for the same person.-- CrossTempleJay talk 10:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expanded and reworked as anthroponymy list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bloch[edit]

Andrew Bloch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. After removing the claims of notability that are about the PR agency rather than Block, all that remains is his heavy Twitter use based on the Tweetlevel tool rather than a publication and being listed somewhere in the PR Week Power Book. Specifically the clients mentioned are Frank's rather than his personal clients (even if they were, being an agent for notable clients does not automatically confer notability) and awards mentioned are for Frank PR, not for Block himself. Fæ (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The sentence - Bloch tweets at http://www.twitter.com/andrewbloch, does not add any important fact to the article. Again the heading - "What they do" talks more about a company and what the company has achieved rather than shedding light on the notable personality of Andrew Bloch. If no considerable expansion and make over can be done then it should be deleted.-- CrossTempleJay talk 08:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a noteable executive in a listed firm, so is of relevance to media, shareholders, investors and employees. The information on Andrew's agency can and should be removed or placed on the main agency page, and additional citations for all other parts are being sourced as needs be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaySorrels (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Frank PR is not a listed company, the parent company Photon Group is listed on on the Australian stock exchange. Company executives are not automatically notable as Wikipedia is not intended to be a executive staff listing for the history of all corporate boards for companies that meet ORG. The criteria of BIO have to be met for the individual to justify a stand-alone encyclopaedic article. Fæ (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. That is not enough. However, the criteria for Creative Professionals should be instructive. This person is very regularly cited by peers and trade media in an authoritative manner and there are many analagous figures with stand alone entries which after a time of collaboration and editing have remained on Wikipedia without objection or incident. This article has clearly not met such a standard. But it must and will in the near future. JaySorrels (talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadband universal service[edit]

Broadband universal service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is this a notable concept or just a student essay? A large part of the article is a fork of National Broadband Plan (United States). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable topic. The article needs to be improved, especially made more clear and given an international scope, as well as more "encyclopedic" language. But good work by the author. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth makes a good point. This is a notable topic, the article does need to be improved, but what will the difference be between "Broadband universal service" and "National Broadband Plan (United States)?" This article seems to deal solely with "universal broadband" service in the United States. Banaticus (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and discussion. Broadband universal service is a much broader concept than the National Broadband Plan. I will add some more content on the entry. Oceanski (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added some international cases and expanded the discussion of the ongoing efforts to reform universal service and to develop the Connect America Fund. Please take a look. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know. Thank you. Oceanski (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a major topic which merits good treatment here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 eBay. selective merge at editorial discretion Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EachNet[edit]

EachNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails the notability guidelines for companies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.

Delete per nomination, a short-lived online auction business without any showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. All the information here could easily fit inside eBay, who bought it out, without undue emphasis. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DON"T DELETESchool was a significant Brick & Morter 12,000 square foot institution that helped many unemplyed, underemployed and welfare recipients get well paying jobs in the casino industry...see Atlntic County's Job Training Partnership Act(JTPA) participating institutions 1986 circa.Isitme2 (talk)isitme2Isitme2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Merge and redirect--Google news hits and Smerdis's arguments suggest that this is a notable enough search term for a merge and redirect. It may be a tiny little section in the eBay article--then again, 150 million is not a tiny little amount. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 8 May 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) 00:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Democratic Party of Russia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Independent Democratic Party of Russia

Articles for deletion/Independent Democratic Party of Russia (2nd nomination)

Independent Democratic Party of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Although there where perhaps attempts to create this party, it doesn't exist and won't be founded, which became clear already some month ago. The article can be deleted, thus. Alfredovic (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This newsletter from May 1st is the most recent information I could find on it (I didn't check Russian sources though). Could you comment how did it became clear that it won't be founded? Looking at the previous AfD there was a small consensus that the non-existence of the party wasn't an issue as long as it was worded properly, given the fair coverage it received when the announcement was made. Would it be any different if it was definitive that the party won't be formed? - frankieMR (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the newest information about so-called NDPR (Independent Democrativ Party of Russia) is from march 2009, as I can see in the Russian sources. Ryzhkov which is mentioned is in a new party now (see my comment below). Lebedev still is in the party Fair Russia; and the website http://www.ndpr.alebedev.ru/home/ has never been updated since 2009. The presentation on the party project by Lebedev itself (the only thing one can find at the website) has been created on november 25th, 2008, and it was uploaded on march 10th, 2009. Since then - no members, no blog, no information, no attempt to register the party - not existant, for short. Therefore delete it. Alfredovic (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not every political party needs to survive to be historically noteworthy. When The Guardian is covering the Independent Democratic Party project LIKE THIS, you know there is an encyclopedia-worthy subject involved here, whether or not the party actually launched or not. I favor the lowest of all possible barriers for coverage of serious topics like this. This is what encyclopedias SHOULD be writing about... Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has never existed, so you can't say that it didn't survive - there just was never such a party, and never had any members. Alfredovic (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1) There was never a concrete project of this party, only thoughts about it 2) Ryzhkov is now in a new party, the Party of Popular Freedom/Parnas 3) Gorbachev didn't found a new party, and 3) Lebedev is still a part of Fair Russia. There has been founded a real new party - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Popular_Freedom_%28current%29 So strongly delete article, since we don't need an article of a non-existing phenomenon, which nothing concrete at all exists about. Alfredovic (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It does seem as if the party was never founded; maybe we should merge the content into Gorbachev's article? —Nightstallion 14:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the party never managed to become a registered party in Russia but due to its well-known backers I think the idea of creating this party is worthy of an article. And it did manage to create lots of media coverage. Närking (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is an idea of creating a party really enough? Even it is an idea by Gorbachev .. not everything he stated in an interview should be worth an article. Alfredovic (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concern with the first AfD was with WP:CRYSTAL for a moment, but unless you are to consider the party a product it was clear that no speculation was being made and that the announcement to form the party was serious, so it was treated as such by the media. If it is somehow clear now that it won't happen then crystal is definitely not an issue, and it is only required to source that fact to seal the content. Notability was clearly established by consensus last time, and it is not temporary. I think the nom has a valid concern regarding that content is to meet significance, and on that I agree with Carrite's position. The subject is of a matter that the encyclopaedia actively seeks since that's it's purpose in the first place - frankieMR (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lung Transplant Foundation[edit]

Lung Transplant Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy G11 contested by a third party on the grounds that the wording of lead paragraph has been cleaned. However, the rest of the article is still blatantly promotional, and no third-party references were used. A search in Google News yields no non-trivial references either, making the organization non-notable. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no more promotional than articles about other non-profit organizations here on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are several third-parties that discuss the Lung Transplant Foundation (of these, the Hearld-Sun of Durham, North Carolina and Great Charities.org come immediately to mind). The organization is young, so it may not yet have received as much third-party coverage as other organizations, but it still has received some, and that makes it notable. Keep. Sterlsilver (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but there is enough on google news alone to demonstrate notability. Feel free to edit it as to reduce anything that appears to be promotional. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At least half of both regular and news searches are about the Heart and Lung Transplant Foundation from Australia, and the rest are passing mentions and comments. The only good item is the one already on the article. These two news 1 2 might provide with something, but they are behind a paywall. Even then coverage would be minor, and the current content is unacceptable - frankieMR (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish notability. Much of the search results in Google News are either incidental mentions, or not this particular organisiation as pointed out above. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who are not in need of a lung transplant will opt for a deletion. Those of us who will be facing this critical operation, would LOVE to continue to see it 'advertised' or ANY other capacity ON WIKIPEDIA. I vote for KEEPING, not deleting. JH in FREELAND, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.31.22 (talk)
I've moved the above from the talk page as it appears to be meant for this discussion -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's multiple editors asserting keep with a claim that coverage in reliable sources exist. Could somebody please provide some specifics because I've looked and have not found the claimed coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of significant coverage. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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