The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Three 6 Mafia. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchy Black[edit]

Crunchy Black (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 am unable to locate any significant mentions of Crunchy Black. The article itself mentions that "little is known about Crunchy Black's current rap career but it is assumed he is still rapping..." This does not appear to meet the standards for notability, even though the group he was a member of may be notable, that notability is not inherited. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Three 6 Mafia. This guy does not have the required level of notability on his own, and a separate article is not merited. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: per Doomsdayer. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:06, 22 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NFL Combine[edit]

2009 NFL Combine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NOT#STATS, non-notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Eagles on this one, but I do have a couple of additional reasons: 1) If the people on this list are notable, these statistics (such as height, weight, etc) will be available at their article page. Repeating here seems redundant (and repetitive too!). 2) It seems that this page really is a redundant outside of Wikipedia as well--wouldn't all this data be available at one website that already exists? Just a couple thoughts.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because of Eagles' reasoning. Its the only one in existence anyway, no other years combine has an article.--Yankees10 01:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:49, 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 speedy close, mistaken nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Inner Circle (The Office)[edit]

The Inner Circle (The Office) (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-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random scene, not embedded in analytical commentary, not needed to understand the article. Fails NFCC#8, just like so many others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: Umm... I think this is a mistake. Did you mean to nominate the photo for deletion? Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, indeed. Wrong twinkle button or something. Sorry about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 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 Speedy Delete per A7. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Drill[edit]

Bible Drill (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 game Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:54, 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FC Terek Grozny in Europe[edit]

FC Terek Grozny in Europe (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 page details the games of FC Terek Grozny football team in continental competitions. This team played only 4 games in 2004 in the early stages of the UEFA Cup. Games of low importance like these don't deserve such coverage. The results of the aforementioned games are already present in the article about the team, hence redundant. Maimai009 20:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree - the main information on the page seems to be a list if players. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - not enough content to justify having a content fork; instead, I would suggest merging back into the main article, and expanding the current section FC Terek Grozny#FC Terek in Europe. GiantSnowman 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Nowhere near enough content to justify a stand-alone article. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As a redundant content fork. All content appears to be sufficiently covered in the main article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:54, 21 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IKB Travel[edit]

IKB Travel (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 travel agency, which fails WP:SIGCOV: one source provides trivial coverage; two other sources provide no coverage whatsoever; claims of notability are still unsubstantiated. Meph^talk 19:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails to comport with WP:COMPANY notability guidelines. Nothing more than an attempt to misuse Wikipedia to gain commercial exposure.--Hokeman (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Shu Min[edit]

Wee Shu Min (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:Orphan, Notabable for only one minor event, not a major biographical figure in Singapore, sources are mainly blogs and forums. Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wee Shu Min elitism viewpoint, which is the only thing she would be notable for and has everything here in much more detail. (I have my doubts as to whether that would be notable, but that is an entirely different issue). Kansan (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect as proposed by Kansan. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per reasons stated by original proposor.I'm incontinent and wear Tena Slip Maxi (talk) 13:01, 23 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. (Closing early as per WP:SK criterion 1.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Immortal losing game[edit]

Immortal losing game (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 article is all original research and annotation. More importantly, I can find no reliable sources that this game, which I do not believe is well-known in chess annals, is actually known as the "Immortal losing game" (there are some Google hits, but they all seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or other non-reliable sources). Kansan (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Chessgames.com calls it that, and it certainly isn't a Wikipedia mirror, see this. I'll look for references. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I found a good reference and added it to the article. However, it only gives the basic details of the game and the moves, with no analysis. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've added an external link to the source of the analysis. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did find some links to discussion on Chessgames.com when looking, but the discussion there essentially like message board content? I would be willing to withdraw this if it's well sourced, but I just want to be able to see that this name is widely held and not just coming from a pun of the day from Chessgames or a comment there or something like that. Kansan (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, any registered user can post on ChessGames, so that isn't a reliable source for commentary (but it is for the other facts). The paper encyclopedia from the 1970s has an entry about the game (and calls it what this article calls it). The French webpage link appears to be a reliable source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The person giving the analysis on the French website has an international rating over 2200, which would be a national master in the US, so I think he is qualified enough to make the analysis reliable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - now better sourced. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, per Bubba73's good work, I'm willing to withdraw my nomination. Kansan (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Cristall-Clarke[edit]

Jonah Cristall-Clarke (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 subject of tis article does not meet the guidelines for notability. Juri Koll (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. -- AllyD (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The references in the article show he has picked up student awards and a decent review of his 2005 performance with a workshop group, but it isn't enough to meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria at the moment. Not to say he won't in the future though. AllyD (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete student work and awards of this sort is not normally considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 22 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gelman[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. References are only passing mentions of the individual. Article fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. This is blatant WP:SPAM from a WP:SPA. Qworty (talk) 00:10, 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 no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (horse)[edit]

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

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

Uncertain situation about the notability. Multiple sources have been provided to verifiability is not a problem. Pitke (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources are non-trivial, and so the subject does meet our notability guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please elaborate, which part does it fulfill? Asking out of curiosity. Pitke (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This one certainly qualifies as non-trivial coverage, and the source certainly meets our guidelines. That was enough for a keeper, although I admit luck was involved here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I disagree that the sources are non-trivial; these appear to be routine "puff piece" article type coverage. There are many therapy animals out there; why is this one in particular notable? Kansan (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't have articles on every therapy animal that makes lots of people happy. Has this animal appeared as a Breyer horse model, or have any commercial endorsements, or other indicia of actual notability other than its owners' PR machine? I agree this is a puff piece based on other puff pieces. What makes this therapy animal any more special than the thousands of other ones in the country? I mean, the TIME list includes Bucephalus but not Comanche (horse). By what criteria did they come up with this list? (Same for the dogs, why one dog but not others?) Montanabw^(talk) 00:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment external links that were removed Pitke (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Green-Buzz 9 Most Heroic Animals of 2010
• Global Animal Most Heroic Animals
• Miniature Therapy Horse AARP's Most Heroic Pet In America - Discover Horses
• WCJB News Tiny Horse Honored
• The Magic Touch - Suwannee Democrat
• Newspaper articles and television news stories about Magic
• National and international press about Magic
• AARP Heroic Pet
• Mini Magic Makes Historic List
• National Honors For Comforting The Ill
• Wonder
• Mini Magic
• AARP The Magazine
• Equine VIP Talks To Magic
• Miniature Therapy Horse Most Heroic Pet In America
• Time Magazine
• Magic: This Miniature Horse Makes Miracles
• Therapy Horse Proves She Is Magic
• Most Heroic Animals
• Believe in Magic
• [http://lakecityjournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=73&ArticleID=6255
• Delete all in all this animal's notability seems to depend on "heroic" or "courageous" qualities, although I fail to see why an (apparent) website padding list using these words and listing animal individuals in no logical order and without explaining their placing on the list should be considered a notable source. Generally, IMO calling animals heroic is unnecessary romanticism and anthropomorphism -- it's sure nice if a dog saves a drowning kid, but it was his instinct and/or conditioning and training, and not really compareable to a human doing the same thing. Pitke (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And most of the above being stories about the original story. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Pitke. Also, I think that it's quite possible for a 'non-trival' source to include 'trivial' information. MurfleMan (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep For subjects where there are no very obvious standard like this one, the GNG is appropriate. The references are fully sufficient to meet it. The basic idea is that we accept what outside sources think notable. If we would like to withdraw the GNG altogether, I wouldn't necessarily be strongly opposed, but it would need a veery wide discussion, and I doubt it would have anything like consensus. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, this could be regarded as a trivial topic, but it most certainly meets WP:GNG and no other guideline is relevant to the topic. The Time piece seems like significant coverage, and there are plenty of local or industry-specific sources listed above that offer significant coverage as a result of that listing. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Close call for WP:GNG. Coverage is somewhat substantial.--PinkBull 19:05, 24 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 Pell Grant. I'll add a ((copied)) for attribution purposes; this should have been treated as a merge. T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Pell Grants[edit]

Federal Pell Grants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Newly created article (moved to mainspace on 4/27/2011) duplicating Pell Grant. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Redirect to Pell Grants. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Wow, this is more complicated than I expected. It appears this was worked on in the sandbox of Nishii08 (talk · contribs) as a way to improve the Pell Grant article, possibly for a class project. On 24 April, Fleetham (talk · contribs), who does not appear to have been involved with that sandbox development, added a significant amount of that text to Pell Grant: [1]. The easy way out would be to re-userfy this article and inform those involved with its development of the situation, and revert Pell Grant to its state before Fleetham added the copied text ([2]), but even that might lose good-faith contributions. I am truly stumped as to what is the right thing to do here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up: Fleetham (talk · contribs) responded on my talk page that the edit to Pell Grant I mentioned above was indeed an intentional copy-paste. I'm still not sure what an appropriate disposition here is. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. I'd close it, but I promised to take a wiki-break from such activity. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 23 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 deleted by RHaworth (G3: Blatant hoax). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Callebrection[edit]

Callebrection (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. Wikipedia is not a dictionary per WP:NOT Phearson (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. May be redirected to an existing article, but only if common usage can be shown. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, hoax dicdef. Zero google hits beyond this page, and no sign of a Latin word "callebrocto" either. Hairhorn (talk) 02:04, 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 discussion closed as moot. Article has been speedily deleted by User:Athaenara. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pricespider.com[edit]

Pricespider.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)

been tagged for cleanup for over a year, not cleaned up, opening AFD on this one as it also sounds like advertising. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete: PriceSpider's realtime tracking and price history capability lets the consumer have access to the latest pricing data while enabling them to check against price trend history. This allows the consumer to make very informed decision about best pricing for their intended purchases. Sounds like advertising? The best Google News results are just listings in general stories about price comparison websites, mentioning that this is another of 'em that's available. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as spam. I already tagged as such. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:12, 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Intifada[edit]

Third Intifada (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 article had previously been deleted because it was created before the event in question. The current article has been created after the event in question, but the event does not appear to be notable. Rather than a long term intifada, the event appears to have been a one-day protest (see news reports here and here). Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for stated reasons and for having no sources whatsoever and biased language. PluniAlmoni (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence that this is the start of a real intifada. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is there a good reason not to tag it Db-repost for speedy deletion ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply As explained in the nomination, the prior nomination was for an article in anticipation of the event. The current article was written after the event, and so the underlying policies are different. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think you are being very kind. The details may differ but the articles are substantially the same, a description of something that doesn't exist yet called the Third Intifada. Not only that but the topic is covered by discretionary sanctions so I would have been inclined to kill with fire but I guess the outcome will be the same either way. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete under the principle of Not News. This is a one-day protest in no way comparable to the two Intifadas. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no evidence as yet that these events will be important or will be the "Third Intifada." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Intifada for now, recreate if this really takes off and becomes known as the "Third Intifada". Qrsdogg (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a current event in its infancy. Events similar to this have usually become notable. The quality of the article is more the issue than the notability, and had it been written well, it never would have been put up for deletion. Linda Olive (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it really isn't because there is no such thing as the Third Intifada. There are the events of Nakba_day#2011_commemoration. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've speedied earlier versions of this. It's pov and unsourced, also deleted by a previous afd Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia does not deal with speculated future historical events. No reliable sources say that this event actually happened. In the current form, should be speedily deleted. Marokwitz (talk) 08:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, at least one reliable source (CBS News) does verify that something happened that was spurred by this facebook group. (See the links above in the original nomination.) But that something was not much different than any other day-to-day uprisings that occur in the region. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 09:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If that was an Intifada why not then call the widespread uprisings "the Third World War"? BTW You might want to speedily delete this page as well since it covers the same subject.--Rafy talk 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if written properly: The news search shows dozens of stories discussing the possibilities and efforts to organize. The various viewpoints make the concept notable, whether or not full blown ongoing protests are labeled that way. Just curious as to how many protests make an intifada in minds of those who would delete it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:47, 23 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AQB Sports Ratings[edit]

AQB Sports Ratings (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 seem to be notable. No hits in Google Scholar, one hit in Google Books that is not previewable, and no reliable sources turn up in a Google search. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources simply do not exist. Nothing to demonstrate notability, and notability really isn't even claimed. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet notability guidelines. Harrias ^talk 19:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a notable football rating system. GiantSnowman 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Warburton1368 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:52, 21 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Plumbe[edit]

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

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

Recently deleted by PROD and then undeleted after request by the subject himself. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG The-Pope (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral position: More notability would certainly be useful to defend this article, I am not able to vote delete due to lack of awareness of this persons contribution perhaps an Expert in the following star trek (sic) and/or the authors writing and/or the games critics side of things might advise, if this is worth saving? I have added expert and category Star Trek User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 10:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeBeckett (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - marginal figure in all these categories; note that he was not a member of Star Trek fandom, but rather a paid editorial person hired to run an Official Fan Club by the owners of that particular commercial franchise. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing in gnews, fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 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) 22:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Box (2011)[edit]

The Black Box (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Fails WP:FILMNOT. elektrikSHOOS 09:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - all references found in search refer to a 2005 film of the same title, and to an earlier film by Noel Coward. As per WP:FILMNOT the following is failed: The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate per WP:TOOSOON. The film by Jason Balas, an assistant professor at the University of North Texas,[3] appears to be in post-production. We can afford to have it stored out of mainspace until its release is confirmed and it gets coverage and/or reviews. If it does not, the incubated article will be deleted. A non-bitey win-win for the project. Sorry Jason. Get this one some coverage or it will not be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 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,  Sandstein  11:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or maybe Incubate An independent film that hasn't even been released and hasn't been covered. Incubation is a bit generous, but better than keeping as is. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:26, 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) 00:48, 24 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) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thodoris Moschonas[edit]

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

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

A candidate for speedy G4, but the nom was declined, even though this player still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 10:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. He doesn't just easily surpass WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL he clobbers it down much like The Thing of the Fantastic 4 would. This guy is the goalkeeper for one of the top SuperLeague teams in Greece. It doesn't get any more notable than this in Greece. In fact, it doesn't get anymore notable than this in Europe considering that AEK regularly clobbers international teams. How could anybody nominate this goalkeeper? He signed a professional goalkeeper's contract with AEK when he was only 18 years old. He may be baby-faced but he is a kickass goalkeeper.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real kickass. from 1st (and most recent dated) ref (translation)"The young goalkeeper is theoretically fourth in order of priority in the group behind Saha, Arampatzis and Lukacs..."--ClubOranje^T 06:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, he meets the Association Football element of WP:ATHLETE because he has played an international game as a Youth player whilst on a professional contract "at the highest level". And in my opinion he meets WP:GNG too.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He is contracted to Superleague Greece club AEK, but according to both the article and the player's profile on AEK's website, he has no first-team competitive appearances. Therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, which requires a player to play in fully-professional competition; having a pro contract with a big club isn't enough. No-one has yet shown evidence of enough non-routine media coverage to get him through WP:GNG. Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. He is a goalkeeper in a team that plays internationally (i.e. not just domestically). He meets WP:GNG because he has had a full-on interview on radio in Greece (and the interview has been published). See first reference.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the team is not in question, but Mr Moschonas hasn't yet played for it. That first reference now added to the article proves that he has been noticed by the media, but a short interview when a big-club's youngster moves up to the first-team squad is pretty routine. The sixth has one sentence saying he signed his first pro contract. The other four are stats pages or squad lists showing he's a member of the club's squad but hasn't appeared for the team, which the link to the AEK website already indicated and AFAIK no-one doubted. Routine sports coverage doesn't get a youngster through the GNG. Struway2 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added second interview. He is a current member of the squad. He has played for the AEK's junior team and there are many articles about that too (but have not added any of those yet).  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There was also another AfD, in January 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodoros Moschonas, which resulted in speedy deletion. As far as I know, nothing has changed since then. Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was AfD'd in July 2010 and he was interviewed on radio and the interview was published in July 2010.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 13:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, being contract to and having actually made an appearance for a club a two different things. He fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Recreate if and when he makes his debut for AEK or anyone else at a fully-professional level of football. --Jimbo^[online] 15:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. He doesn't fail WP:GNG have added two references with interviews of Moschonas to the article. And there are many articles where he is mentioned and he appears on the list of every recent AEK Super League game. He meets WP:GNG and he is a current member of the squad. Moreover, he was a member of the National Youth squad that played against Germany in February 2009 (which means that he meets the Association Football element of WP:ATHLETE because he has played an international game as a Youth player whilst on a professional contract "at the highest level").  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we've done him before and nothing has changed, still has achieved nothing of particular note. Started with AEK in 2007. AfD'd in July 2010 as a footballer with 0 appearances senior pro, no senior international appearances, only youth, thereby not played at a notable level by Wikipedia standards. Still has not played at the required level. Still has 0 appearances for AEK, still has not played senior professional football, still has not played senior international football, youth caps still do not confer notability. Coverage is pretty standard general sports coverage. The previously deleted article also presumably claimed he played for AEK otherwise it had no claim to fame and would likely have been A7'd rather than discussed, so I fail to see the rationale behind the speedy declination - but then, I'm not looking at the previous article. --ClubOranje^T 07:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He meets the Association Football element of WP:ATHLETE because he has played an international game as a Youth player whilst on a professional contract "at the highest level". And in my opinion he meets WP:GNG too.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re sports notability.

The general criterion at WP:NSPORT#Notability guidelines on sportspersons requires a sportsperson to "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". International football at youth level is not and never has been considered "competition at the highest level".

To satisfy the association football-specific criteria, a player must either (1) have played in "any officially sanctioned senior international competition" (my bolding); or (2) have "appeared ... in a fully-professional league".

On (1), youth internationals are by definition not senior international competition;

On (2), the many statistical pages cited in Mr Moschonas' article agree that he has not yet appeared in a fully-professional league.

The note below those two statements at WP:NFOOTBALL says explicitly: "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." (again, my highlighting).

Mr Moschonas clearly doesn't yet meet the football notability guideline. Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So there are no arguments that he does not meet WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 14:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As stated above, he very clearly fails WP:NSPORT. The references all appear to be routine sports journalism and are therefore insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring two media interviews which clearly meet WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Coverage is routine. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:50, 21 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Southgate[edit]

Barry Southgate (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 evidence of notability. The references cited do not provide any substantial third part coverage in reliable sources. For example, http://www.wjdxfm.com/new2/featured/f/3115 says "© 2010 Barry Southgate", so it is not an independent source. Not only does the page http://www.frontiertouring.com/brianmcknight contain no mention of him, but using the web site's search facility for "Barry Southgate" produces the message "No results were found". http://www.theopenhouse.net.au/cgi-bin/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=barry+southgate+ barely mentions him. http://www.shadedblaque.com/blog/shaded-blaque-approved-the-melodic-sounds-of-barry-southgate/ is a blog. http://thecsperspective.com/about/ is a personal web site run by "two friends", and not a reliable source. And so it goes on... JamesBWatson (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm He did play the role of Customer in a Power Rangers Ninja Storm episode, isn't that notable? I didn't think so. Delete as failing general notability in spite of bad references. May just be too soon. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Brian McKnight site is an example of the difficulty of linking to some sites. Click the "Special Guests" tab for the text about Southgate being cited. (It's not much, but it does exist.) - Dravecky (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The main contributor seems very eager to have this artist included on Wikipedia, but unfortunately the subject lacks coverage in reliable third party sources. As Dennis Brown points out, possibly just too soon. VQuakr (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfiy- User is eager to get this page out, but it's too early. Page should be moved into userspace, so that the user can work on it.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Changing to Delete per below[reply]
• Why? Is there evidence of notability? If not then it should be deleted. If there is then what evidence, where? "User is eager to get this page out" is not a reason for keeping.JamesBWatson (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. BigDom 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike London (journalist)[edit]

Mike London (journalist) (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 an entirely negative WP:BLP1E which seems non-notable apart from a controversy. Information might be mentioned in another article but keeping this inexpandable stub is dangerous. - filelakeshoe 10:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as a One Event hit piece, per nom. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nom is spot on, a one event personality, with the very weak one event. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:46, 22 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 g11 as advertising for selfpublished book (note that book does not appear on Amazon or Google Books search). NawlinWiki (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Heuristic Triangle[edit]

The Heuristic Triangle (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 analysis concept. The concept of the Heuristic Triangle is only described in the cited book. The author can offer no evidence that it is used or even known by anybody else. Dcoetzee 10:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see even a single reference of where this concept has been used, I am not sure as to how it even qualifies for a discussion for 'deletion'. Vinod.napier 10:22, 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) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Shore (banker)[edit]

John Shore (banker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Minor late 18th/early 19th century banker. No articulation of why topic meets WP:BIO, no evidence of substantive third party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under A7. I don't see any claim of notability other than he started a bank, which I don't think is normally enough to pass the bar for WP:GNG even if perfectly sourced, which this isn't. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is inappropriate to hammer articles of historical figures with Speedy Deletes because they don't seem notable enough to this person or that. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one was hammering him. I just fail to see a claim of notability in the article. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is a historical figure, or at least the article doesn't claim he is. Any BLP that fails to make a claim of notability is subject to CSD, no matter how long ago they passed on. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Genealogical piece of family interest, seemingly part of a nice effort on the net at THIS URL. Unfortunately, founding a failed bank doesn't constitute sufficient significance to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on present evidence as not notable. I'm completely with Carrite on avoiding speedy with articles such as these; the West Yorkshire Unitarians at this period are an interesting and important group of people and this is a well connected family. Assessing notability can be a bit of a specialist task and may well require knowledge of material not available on the web. There could still be something more that could tip him over the edge into notability and this clearly isn't someone whose life history has none of the necessary requirements. Family historians are often poorly placed to assess the sorts of things that are important to Wikipedians. But having said all that I doubt he can make it. --AJHingston (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Parker and Shore's Bank seems to be notable, so an article on that could be a suitable home for this content. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the founder of a bank that lasts for a century is notable. We should also make an article for the bank. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually he was only one of five/six co-founders (three/four Shores -- depending on whether the article is referring to two different Williams or one William twice, one Roebuck and the Parker after which it was also named) and the bank only lasted for 69 years. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:53, 23 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. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Whittock[edit]

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

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

Minor 19th century engraver, with no articulation of how the topic meets WP:CREATIVE. Little evidence of third-party sourcing. No biography in www.oxfordartonline.com Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Only 32K ghits, 1300 Gbook hits - and such a common name too. Let's keep bashing the newbies. Grove does in fact give him a sentence at "Bird’s-eye view", and he is often mentioned elsewhere as a prolific author of instruction books for drawing, and much else. Now has 4 good sources Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GOOGLEHITS, more WP:GOOGLEHITS & WP:Assume bad faith. Who needs to even consider notability guidelines and third-party sourcing when you have these? I would point out that "a sentence" is hardly "significant coverage", and that "often mentioned elsewhere" is hardly a full reference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article now has these. What is it with you? If you don't like something, just tag it. You know how to tag - you seem to do little else. Johnbod (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it doesn't. What is it with me? I think policy and guidelines should actually matter. And you know how to remove tags without first correcting the problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For an historical artist, the sources provided in the article establish notability and satisfy guidelines. freshacconci talktalk 13:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely what it is with you: you seem to think that following your idiosyncratic interpretation of policy and guidelines matters more than writing a verifiable neutral-point-of view encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Johnbod and Tyrenius's useful essays WP:HISTORYBIAS and WP:HART. freshacconci talktalk 17:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the most important thing about this topic, if Johnbod is to be believed, is that he once titled a book: "The decorative painters' and glaziers' guide: containing the most approved methods of imitating oak, mahogany, maple, rose, cedar, coral, and every other kind of fancy wood, Verd Antique, Dove, Sienna, Porphry, white-veined and other marbles, in oil or distemper colour; designs for decorating apartments, in accordance with the various styles of architecture; with directions for stencilling, and process for destroying damp in walls; also a complete body of information on the art of staining and painting on glass; plans for the erection of apparatus for annealing it, and the method for joining figures together by leading, with examples from ancient windows." And, as everybody knows, notability is directly proportional to title length, thus clearly establishing his jinormous notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, seems notable enough and valid. From a cursory google search [4] easily notable..Modernist (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, emphatically. I find it bizarre to argue that the length of the book title is somehow an argument against notability (we'd best be deleting a number of Renaissance humanists, then, because the titles of their books are just too damned long). Whittock seems to have been the author of multiple books about art, and as an engraver himself produced a number of documentable works. We have thousands of articles on minor fictional characters in sitcoms, popular novels and the like, presumably for the purpose of creating a comprehensive encyclopedia that covers all aspects of culture, even if I myself find most of this trivial and fan-oriented. In what way does it damage the credibility of WP to record the historical existence of an engraver who also wrote several books? "I'm not interested in this guy" is not an argument for non-notability. "Minor" does not mean "non-notable." Cynwolfe (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep clearly notable historical figure. I totally fail to understand the "comment" by Hrafn. It seems the epitome of IDONTCAREABOUTIT. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient independent sources to establish notability of the subject. Edward321 (talk) 23:28, 22 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 Nevi'im. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hebrew Prophets, nabiy'[edit]

The Hebrew Prophets, nabiy' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a totally incomprehensible mish-mash that violates WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, WP:NEO ("nabiy'" does not explain or help to understand "The Hebrew Prophets"). What little is salvageable should be merged into the main Nevi'im (Hebrew Prophets) article as some sort of "Interpretations" section and not be a probable violation of WP:CONTENTFORKING to it. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to main Nevi'im (Hebrew Prophets) article. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Nevi'im. I can't see any reason to have two article on the same subject. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Nevi'im. I developed this from an earlier article entitled "Shouters". There was very little and the title seemed unprofessional. I followed the lead to the Spanish article and put a google translation into the article. But, I agree that it is in rough. The Spanish article seemed quite good. I would not like to see all the Spanish information lost in the merge. But, I am in favor of the merge nonetheless. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per IZAK, if anything is actually salvageable. This smacks of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is poor, and needs both renaming and extending. However, the topic is notable, and sources for a good article exist. Merging to Nevi'im is not the answer, since that article is about a set of books, and this article is about a religious community mentioned in 1 Samuel: a completely different topic. -- 202.124.73.248 (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per the above. If this topic is indeed notable (and it might be), then a fresh start on it would be best. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the topic is clearly notable. The article needs improvement, and the way to improve articles is to keep and improve them, even if a good deal of the text needs rewriting. There's no advantage in deleting first. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 22 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 NFL Undrafted Free Agents[edit]

2011 NFL Undrafted Free Agents (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 standard linkfarm, most of which are red. Clear case of WP:NOT. Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article serves a purpose and the red links on the names will be updated once some of the players make teams and will have a page created. I am still updating this page so please do not delete. If you can make the page more marketable, please help but this page is very valuable during a very unsual time in the NFL. Thank you carthage44 Talk • 02:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the appeal only seals neutralhomer's point so eloquently... clear delete.... if you want to know what we're trying to keep wikipedia from becoming, read the above keep rationale. Shadowjams (talk) 08:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Convert redlinks to plaintext. Remove players not mentioned in secondary sources. AfD hero (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have converted the red links to plaintext and it looks much cleaner. Many hours have been put into this page and people are always looking for undrafted free agents therefore page should be kept. Carthage44 (Talk) 05:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Carthage44 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I couldn't find exactly which section of WP:NOT where this article fails to comport. Continue the cleanup process (adding sources, cats, etc).--Hokeman (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was undrafted in this draft again (even with a stellar 8.00 40-yard-dash time), so I guess I have to be added to this list. There are thousands of players undrafted this year, as there are thousands of players who played as seniors last year. This running list is not useful, and while I applaud the creator for his/her tireless work on it, it simply isn't notable. Typically the most notable undrafted free agents are added to the ends of draft articles, but not the hundred others that aren't that notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is a distinction between the notability of any particular player, and the notability of the article as a whole. It is perfectly fine for players to be mentioned in this list, even if they are not individually notable. The relevant section of WP:N reads as follows:

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list.. AfD hero (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because that sounds better than moving the article to List of non-notable American football players in 2011 or List of American football players who couldn't play well enough to make a professional team in 2011. Indeed, some on the list will be notable due to WP:GNG and other factors... but that is not a reason to make this list. It doesn't appear to be helpful in any way.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Simple WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is far more notable to be one of the 254 that are drafted as opposed to the ~2,000 eligible seniors that aren't. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added a link for a reference that shows only the top prospects that were considered for the 2011 NFL Draft. The list of players on this page will only includ those who were being considered for the draft not just any senior in all of college football. Once again this is a needed page and should stay. Carthage44 (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Carthage44 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

• Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems relevant: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Fails to establish notability as specified by WP:GNG. It is also arbitrary which undrafted players are included on this list, as the list is not complete. If the page was not obviously notable, it should have been developed in the user space per WP:MINDREADER. —Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely arbitrary listing with no real verifiable inclusion criteria. It's WP:NOT as well of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. I'm going to go off on a tangent - if one editor is using this list to work on bluelinking football players as they sign with teams, why not let him/her userfy it? Notes and working drafts (the article kind) are precisely why we have a userspace. I concur that the list doesn't really work that well as a stand alone article - I wasn't drafted in the 2011 draft either, much to my dismay. Some of the more notable names might find their way to the main 2011 draft article, if references exist - but the entire list isn't quite gonna work in this form. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got no problem with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The different statuses of French in England between the 11th and 21st centuries[edit]

The different statuses of French in England between the 11th and 21st centuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looks like a research paper that's been pasted into Wikipedia. Could be worthy of inclusion (perhaps as History of the French language in England or some such title??) but with the "Conclusions" section and the one reference this looks like huge WP:OR. JaGa^talk 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in it's current form is not written in a wikipedia style. Nevertheless it contains a lot of good information, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue against the notability of the topic itself. AfD hero (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to neutral. If the article is deleted, do so without prejudice towards recreation in the future. AfD hero (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The intro alone clearly indicates this is an essay. (count the uses of the word "we"....) Further reading looks like synth, complete with a Conclusions section. Clearly does not belong here. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear case of WP:OR (the "conclusions" section even says "this research.."). No doubt an interesting topic, but not a topic for a WP article at present. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An article on the history of English and/or French would be appropriate for Wikipedia, but this is unsalvageable for encyclopaedia purposes. Almost completely unsourced and full of opinions and subjective emphasis. Interesting take on the subject, but this is the wrong website. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:OR is not valid grounds for deletion of a notable topic. Proper course of action is to improve the article by removing OR, even if that means editing it down to a stub. AfD hero (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated below, WP:OR is grounds for deletion if removing the OR means removing everything and a replacement stub would be meaningless. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest that after this content is deleted, it should be userfied to AfD hero, or incubated. AfD hero seems convinced that this is salvageable, so he should not be denied the opportunity to try.

  I must say, though, that we will not find sources on "the different statuses of French in England between the 11th and 21st centuries". We may find sources for Jaga's suggestion, "History of the French Language in England"—so if this is kept, it would need to be renamed to what the sources call it. And also, removing the unsourced content would leave us with a tiny stub; replacing it with sourced content would mean a total rewrite from start to finish. Thus, if the outcome of this is "keep", then it's keep but with a different name and different content; I'm having trouble seeing the point, personally. Good luck with improving the article, though.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a WP:CFORK that is covered by France – United Kingdom relations#History. OCNative (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Essential reading for this topic is For to Speke Frenche Trewely which is reviewed here at the Journal of French Language Studies. Developing the topic from such sources is our editing policy; deletion is not. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one book covers 1000–1600, not 1000 to the present. And the time frame here seems arbitrary. Why not the 3rd century to now? 1951 to 1973? It also doesn't address the fact that the current article would have to be completely deleted IF (and I do mean if) it was notable, as it is 100% synth. You can't convert this from an essay to an article without using liberal amounts of fire. Sorry if it comes across sharp, but we often do delete if nothing is salvageable and notability isn't obvious. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The timeframe is since the Norman conquest (or since a Norman woman married into the English royal house). —Tamfang (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the subject is notable. Col.W has shown there are specific sources devoted to it, and thee are of course many others that discuss it. For almost any broad historical period, there are various possible cut-off dates, and there is no reason to expect or require exact correspondence as long as the subject is treated. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 22 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 to delete. In reviewing the discussion below I cannot see any consensus to delete. Opinions are split between keeping the article outright and redirecting to their notable product. Further discussion on the possibilities of a redirect or merge can take place on the articles talk page if anyone is interested. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guild Software[edit]

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

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

This is a non-notable company. The article is only two sentences long, and it even says this video game company has only made one video game. OCNative (talk) 06:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG via following sources:

• Local news article about company,
• Article about the founder and the company history,
• Interview with founder about company, AfD hero (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first article is indeed a local media source.
• The second article is of questionable reliability, as clicking on the WTN Media link, the page says, "Through events, publications and online services, WTN Media helps you convey your brand message and brings you closer to your clients and prospects. With a redesigned web presence and updated line of offerings, WTN Media is a valuable partner for your marketing efforts."
• The third article is most definitely not a reliable source because it is a customer testimonial! Teamspeak sold their service to Guild Software, and the CEO of Guild Software is simply providing his company's testimonial as a customer of Teamspeak.
• Of the three articles described above, the first one is the only one that meets WP:RS. According to WP:COMPANY, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." The first article is from local media while the second and third fail WP:RS, therefore notability has not been established under WP:COMPANY. OCNative (talk) 01:34, 17 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) • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the game The game is notable; the founder is notable. If the company ever makes another game, they'd be notable also, but at this point there is no real justification for an article DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The above references contain sufficient information about the company itself to source a solid article. Company passes GNG via nontrivial coverage in multiple secondary sources; number of games published is irrelevant. AfD hero (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See my comments above explaining why those sources are not adequate to establish notability for Guild Software. OCNative (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Very well, here are more sources. not hard to find...

• [5]
• [6]

AfD hero (talk) 02:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is still local press while the second is media of limited interest. OCNative (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to jump through any more hoops. As nominator, perhaps you would consider spending a few minutes looking for sources yourself. AfD hero (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already looked. Had I been able to find sources that met the criteria of WP:COMPANY, then I would not have nominated this in the first place. OCNative (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I find the Inside Mac Games and JSOnline articles together satisfy the general notability guideline, although I would not object to DGG's redirect. Marasmusine (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Redirect to Vendetta Online - as DGG says, if they release another notable game, they might meet the notability criteria, but they don't at the moment PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:55, 24 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Parakala[edit]

Kumar Parakala (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 individual concerned does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. wctaiwan (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article was created by an admitted, paid representative of Kumar Parakala. The creator works for the PR firm that represents the subject, and has a strong Conflict of Interest. Further, I believe the article does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and as such, should be deleted. AndrewN ^talk 05:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability, reads like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. - SudoGhost™ 06:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : Lacks the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, also WP:COI issues. Mtking (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; no proof of notability. The fact the article was made by a PR man is secondary. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:32, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Huffer[edit]

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

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

An junior athlete who appears not to qualify for notablity under Wp:athlete Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the athlete Craig Huffer does meet notable athlete criteria and features on IAAF All-time lists as well as being the 15th fastest senior ever over his distance in Australia. Also he has ran the same or better performances over the 1500 meters than several other collegiate middle distance runners with wikipedia pages such as German Fernandez and Miles Batty, as well bettering the performances last year of Australian athletes with wikipedia articles such as Jeremey Roff. He he also proved to be successful at the international level by winning the Mondo Keien Meeting last year ^[1] an IAAF sanctioned event and meeting another of Wikipedia's athlete notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellington athletic club (talk • contribs) 09:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A google search confirms the notability of this athlete with multiple news articles, images and videos of the athlete. They are also feature particularly prominently in the US and receive a lot of attention amongst track fans. Amiler (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)— Amiler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I only see three sources on Google News, would have expected more if they are "notable" but images and videos of the person doesn't make them notable. Bidgee (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-4miler is still a notable athlete - especially when his 1500m mark coverts to a 3:52 mile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.21.81 (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked number 14 on world list for indoor mile in 2011 and broke the track record at the US champs venue earlier in the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.21.81 (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not competed at top amateur level for international athletics. Junior records and "top 14" finishes are irrelevant. Looks like his friends have popped up at this AfD. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree with LibStar as along with Sam Chelanga Craig Huffer was the only collegiate athlete that was allowed to compete in the prestigious 2011 New Balance Games 3000 meters - one the world's top indoor meets events that is televised nationwide on ESPN 2 in the USA. The athlete like Chelanga receives more coverage in the US than their home country. Also the Number 14 is a world ranking amongst all athletes (professionals and amateurs) over the year and not just a mere event placing. With this attitude no prominet NCAA runners like Huffer, Chelanga, Batty, Fernandez and co. would have articles and their needs to be reliable references with all the hype and rumours floating about on the forums about their ages and backgrounds Wellington athletic club (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC) — Wellington athletic club (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A sub-4 minute miler (confirmed by the IAAF) who has competed in a national championships (as long as this can be properly sourced) cannot seriously be considered to have never competed at the highest level. Having said that, the article needs trimming to that material that is verifiable via reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the criteria is clearly here WP:NTRACK. national championships is not a qualification. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A 3:59 Mile and 3:36 1500m meet WP:NTRACK criteria 9 and far exceed national level performances. This is supported by the athlete's results at premium IAAF meets WP:NTRACK criteria 3. On the grounds of meeting two of the criterion publication seems logical, plus their notability as a collegiate athlete and national title winner with Adams State would constitute a third criterion being met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.21.81 (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC) — 119.18.21.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Yeah mate, as well meeting three of the criterion (two for track athlete and one for collegiate athlete), there general notability as a collegiate athlete is an important one WP:NROUTINE. I've also just included about Huffer winning Australia's richest mile race in 2008 to meet road racing criteria which would would mean four criteria are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellington athletic club (talk • contribs) 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NTRACK --Σ _☭^★ 02:32, 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 no consensus to delete. Merge can be discussed further on the talk page, if needed. T. Canens (talk) 11:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finwë[edit]

Finwë (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 fails to establish notability with reliable, third-party sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please remember WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete per nom, unless there's a place to merge and/or redirect it to. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is referenced in multiple external sources. Why do you not consider it notable? Francis Bond (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The references you refer to are a book about the writing of the Lord of the Rings used to confirm the age of the character and a fan site showing a genealogy. The fan site is not a reliable source and I doubt that the book by Christopher Tolkien could be used to prove notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confused the fan site with a journal, my apologies. I do consider the books in the History of Middle Earth series by Christopher Tolkien to be secondary sources, as opposed to the primary sources of the Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion. I note that there are several google book hits: some obviously not good sources but some that look like academic works (Die Weltdeutung im "Silmarillion" von J. R. R. Tolkien. There isn't quite enough context shown for me to be able cite them, but I consider that enough to show notability. Francis Bond (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Die weltdeutung... Google translate gives "The interpretation of the world" which is quite a vast title; is there a Google books version available to see it in context? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Amazon's read it now does not show anything in the table of contents regarding Finwë, as far as I can tell. The whole book is not available though so that doesn't offer much help. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Amazon's read it now does not show anything in the table of contents regarding Finwë, as far as I can tell. The whole book is not available though so that doesn't offer much help. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Christopher Tolkien books may provide appropriate context - while large parts of the HoME books are reproduction of unpublished work by JRR Tolkien, there is also a significant element of original work by Christopher Tolkien on the creative process. In principle this is no different to any other critic unpicking how a book was put together. If there is a significant amount on (say) the creation of the character of Finwe, this would contribute to establishing notability. You'd probably want another source as well though. 4u1e (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed those books I have access to, and there's almost nothing on Finwë. He is not mentioned in Letters or in Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Tolkien. Neither is he mentioned in Tom Shippey's two books on Tolkien or in John Garth's Tolkien and the Great War. Of the Christopher Tolkien books I have, he is only mentioned in Peoples of Middle-earth, but almost all mentions are in-universe and there is no discussion of the development of his character. Having said that, I do not have the most relevant History of Middle-earth volumes to hand (The Book of Lost Tales, The Lays of Beleriand, Morgoth's Ring and The War of the Jewels) and from memory those do contain some (brief?) discussion of his development. 4u1e (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm leaning toward supporting deletion of Elros, who took little if any active part in the fictional history; he's significant mainly for being the ancestral link between Aragorn and various figures in Beleriand. But Finwë has a more active role in the Silmarillion, so I reckon he's worth keeping if Joyce Summers is. —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability isn't about how important a character is in a book (and Finwë is hardly one of the main characters of The Silmarillion), but about how notable the character is in the real world, as indicated by secondary sources. 4u1e (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (Changed my mind per Cenarium's reasoning below. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)) Merge and redirect to List of Middle-earth Elves. Martinez wrote another essay on Finwe (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/78484 – can't be linked because the host site is on the spam filter) explaining his genealogy and his role in the development of Tolkien's fiction. There's also a book by Hammond and Scull, J.R.R. Tolkien, artist and illustrator, that treats Tolkien's design of a heraldic device for Finwe and his royal house (Google Books page of the German edition). And what Temfang wrote above should also be considered. So while we might not need a full article, the current content itself should not be deleted. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seem to be hundreds of third-party sources for this topic and so its notability is evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Such as? Are they reliable sources? Fan sites and magazines aren't acceptable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Such as the numerous books listed in the search link at the head of this discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I followed the link as you suggested, and the results end up:

1. Two novels with a similarly named character or at least quoting the same passage.
2. A book that seems to list the names of Elven kings (not necessarily in a real-world context.
3. Three French books, one of which looks like a translation of the Lord of the Rings
4. A book on the languages of Middle Earth, which we cannot see inside.

I don't see how any of these books could be used to proof notability. Most mention Finwe in passing and don't focus on him, and there is a general lack of real-world context. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The diaeresis may cause some difficulty. When this is allowed for then satisfactory sources are found. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I used the link above, so the diaeresis should have played no role. Perhaps you could link to one (or more, preferably) source(s) that discuss(es) Finwë in depth? Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The diaeresis does play a role. Sources include:

1. The complete Tolkien companion
2. The complete guide to Middle-earth
3. Tolkien: the illustrated encyclopedia
4. The evolution of Tolkien's mythology
5. A reader's guide to The Silmarillion
6. The origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth for dummies
7. J.R.R. Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion
8. J.R.R. Tolkien and his literary resonances

Colonel Warden (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, any quotes to show that it is not just a passing reference or just a rehash of information found in first party sources? A Google books version would be better. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the diaeresis, I meant that it was included so I should not have gotten any results for Finwe (without the diaeresis). Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As you now see, this is a significant issue. It is often the case that some variation of search keywords is required to bring out the richness of the sources available. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I knew it from the beginning. The books I was referring to were this one and this one, which use the diaeresis. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Keep (changed after identification of suitable sources by Cenarium below)4u1e (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC) a brief mention to List of Middle-earth Elves. We don't need to keep the plot summary element of the article. There does not appear to be any significant real world commentary on this character - the references given above largely come about because more notable characters in the mythology are descended from him, so we get many google hits for the "descendants of Finwë", "sons of Finwë" for example. 4u1e (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There are lots of "real world" commentary on this character, as demonstrated below. Cenarium (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: here are some Google links to the list by Colonel Warden with at least two important findings for the understanding of Tolkien's legendarium:

1. The new Tolkien companion (not the "complete" companion): 20 hits within the book
2. The complete guide to Middle-earth: One dedicated in-depth entry on Finwë and several other hits
3. Tolkien: the illustrated encyclopedia: one encyclopedic entry, several other hits in the book
4. The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: one large chapter on "Finwë and Míriel" that among other things expands on the fact that marrying again after the death of one's spouse was unheard of for Tolkien's elves until Finwë did it
5. A reader's guide to The Silmarillion: 16 hits in the book, not clear though how comprehensively Finwë is being treated
6. The origins of Tolkien's Middle-earth for dummies: apparently only mentioned in passing
7. J.R.R. Tolkien and his literary resonances: views of Middle-earth: Interpretation of the Silmarillion that points out that it was actually the slaying of Finwë that drove his son Fëanor into his desastrous war of revenge, not so much the theft of the Silmaril by the archvillain Morgoth.

Apart from that one might even add a print-published slash fiction with Finwë as a character: The Silent Hustler ("Exiles", 163-177). That book itself may be non-notable but it demonstrates that the use of "Finwë" has gone beyond internet fanfiction. On that note it would be interesting to know whether the Tolkien Estate actually approved of Finwë being used in a gay short story. De728631 (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the links. I am however concerned that they may not be applicable under WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. This one may be useful for describing the creative process behind his creation, but sadly it cannot be read in full. (As a side note, I fully agree that finding out how the Tolkiens would react to published homoerotic slash fiction, or if they approved it, would be interesting... any friends to the family?) Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gets covered in books other than those published by the author himself. Dream Focus 14:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect [to List of Middle-earth Elves. Lacks coverage that isn't WP:PLOT/WP:INUNIVERSE. No sources giving WP:Real world perspective. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable and suitable for a standalone article. The subject has been discussed by numerous secondary sources, and as one can check, the coverage is significant, as shown above and as I'll further demonstrate. WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:Real world are style guidelines, not relevant to notability or suitability for article-ship. WP:PLOT is relevant, but if you look at the coverage in secondary sources, it allows to write much, much more than just plot information.

Before substantiating this case, I'll make a general comment. It seems that several commentators consider that coverage by reliable secondary sources is acceptable for notability/suitability assessment purposes only when it is of purely 'real world' nature, such as creation of the character, reception, etc. This is wrong, WP:GNG doesn't specify which type of coverage is acceptable, and nothing in policy suggests that some sort of 'real world notability' is required, however that might be defined, what is required is notability according to WP:GNG. Of course when considering suitability for article-ship, we have to consider more than only notability of the subject, and there comes into play WP:NOTPLOT. But the corollary of WP:NOTPLOT regarding suitability for article-ship is that there should be some coverage which goes beyond pure plot information, and certainly not that only coverage of 'real-world' nature is relevant when discussing suitability. Now, regarding this case:

As an example of "more than plot" coverage, the subject of Finwe's remarriage (to Miriel) as a societal topic has been discussed by various sources. E.g.: J.R.R. Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion by Richard Purtill, in I Am in Fact a Hobbit: An Introduction to the Life and Works of J. R. R. Tolkien (how it involves monogamy, and how it led to "The Debate of Finrod and Andreth", documented in Morgoth's Ring), Tolkien in the land of heroes: discovering the human spirit, and Mythprint: Volumes 31-32 by the Mythopoeic Society (describing on this a 'fascinating debate').

Regarding the development of the character and its place in Tolkien's work, this is extensively covered in Arda reconstructed: the creation of the published Silmarillion, by Douglas Charles Kane. Finwë is mentioned in dozens of pages throughout the book, the story between Finwe and Mfriel is thoroughly covered, and the importance of Finwë's house highlighted. The author even makes the following commentary which further attests to the significance of the character: "Christopher's decisions to omit the bulk of the material on Finwe and Miriel and not include it as a separate chapter [in the Silmarillion], as Tolkien clearly intended, (...) are very disappointing." (emphasis mine), points which is further stated throughout the book.

This is also covered in The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide by Christina Scull, Wayne Hammond, where the relation between Finwe and Miriel is described as "an important element to the mythology".

In The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth, finwe and miriel are given a full chapter.

So this proves that the subject is notable, and that a standalone article is warranted in order to provide proper encyclopedic coverage of this topic.

Cenarium (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding your first point, note that WP:WAF (part of the MoS) says that "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources—this will also ensure that there is enough source material for the article to be comprehensive and factually accurate." Emphasis mine. I don't regard most of the coverage previously given above as relevant, but you do identify some suitable looking real world secondary sources, which is enough to tip me back to keep (with the proviso that somebody actually embodies them in the article!). 4u1e (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed but I think that the use of 'real world' here is innocuous, it means that the element should be notable in the sense of GNG, as opposed to just being notable in the work of fiction itself. GNG doesn't make distinctions based on the type of coverage; a source which would make the case that an element of fiction is important in the work of fiction for example, even without making reference to real world, would be valid for establishing notability. Cenarium (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I fail to see how that warrants a full article. A well developed section at List of Middle-earth Elves, okay. However, right now we have some sources analyzing the marriage in the context of the book and the writing process behind him. As shown in the GNG,

  "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion.

As such, having topics that discuss it in detail in universe to me shows that it might be kept, but it is up to consensus. There are quite a few editors (including myself) who believe that information about the writing of a rather minor character in one of the most popular series ever written should have a higher standard of real-world notability to avoid having too many articles. This seems to have precedent; Cho Chang (main character in HP5, supporting in three others) redirects to Dumbledore's Army, Yuffie Kisaragi (one of seven playable characters in FF7, and supporting character in FF7-verse]] redirects to Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series, and Míriel Serindë (wife of Finwë, as noted above) redirects to List of Middle-earth Elves#Míriel, even though they all had their own page once upon a time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not only shown that the subject of the article was notable but that it was suitable for a standalone article. There is largely enough reliable secondary sources to make a full fledged encyclopedic article satisfying all the relevant policies. It may be that the article can be merged, but that is an editorial matter, out of AFD scope. AFD is here to determine suitability for a standalone article, not for whether a merge is appropriate. I'm not aware of any stricter standard for fictional elements of popular works of fiction. Also, other stuff exists. Cenarium (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff is useful for showing precedent. Previously, things have happened like this. They may not here, but they previously have. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff is an argument that argues that an article should be kept or deleted because another exists or does not. For example, the Pokemon test was essentially an other stuff argument, like "Keep. If Rattata has it's own article, this should too." I am trying to argue that other actions have been taken before, setting precedent. If precedent were not allowed, the would be no point in referring to the Common outcomes when nominating articles for deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not bound by precedent, consensus can change. That being said, you have not shown in any way that there exists a "precedent" for requiring higher standards for a fictional element when it is part of a 'popular' fictional universe. Míriel Serindë didn't go to AFD, it was an editorial merge. Yuffie Kisaragi didn't go to AFD either, it was an editorial merge. The suitability for a standalone article on those has never been tested. Cho Chang was the subject of one AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cho Chang, which resulted in speedy keep; it was later editorially merged. A topic may well be worthy as a standalone article but for editorial reasons better if merged somewhere, but this is not what AFD determines. The present topic is clearly suitable for inclusion as a standalone article, whether it should be merged on editorial grounds is not the question of this AFD, and even so the argument that you seem to make for it, that is WP:PAPER, does not credit your position since the relevant policies are satisfied. There's no question regarding notability, and there is much to be said beyond just plot information: the analysis of the marriage as a societal topic (not just within the universe), that Tolkien intended this story arc to be included in the Silmarillon, the creation and evolution of the characters, etc are more than 'just plot'. Cenarium (talk) 10:20, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On Crisco 1492's comment a few paragraphs back. How does one decide if there are too many articles? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. One valid criterion would be that they are blocking up the name space, but this is not the case here. The main resource bottleneck is in fact editor time, and trying to delete harmless articles (those that do not contain false and misleading information) that other people want to keep does waste this valuable resource. We all have our own different views as to what is more important, but there clearly is not a consensus that we gain anything by deleting articles like this one. Francis Bond (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is not, and it can never be perfected. My main argument for deletion / merger (I'm open to that) is that this article may not be notable enough to warrant its own article, per WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. However, one of the reasons why the notability criteria is in place is to limit the number of articles. We could not be considered an encyclopedia if we had an article on, for example, myself, no matter what somewhat impressive things I've done; I am not notable enough yet. Although Wikipedia's standards of notability may be lower than paper encyclopedias, they still exist and are ironically notable on their own. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Straying slightly from Finwe. If we look at a standard definition of Encyclopedia a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty (from WordNet, but other dictionaries have similar definitions, the only meaningful difference I have seen is that sometimes a definition adds "written by experts"). Wikipedia's notability criteria are purely an internal thing. I think the main practical reason is to restrict the number of pages we have to verify and patrol for vandalism. There is also a prestige issue, with some people feeling that to much trivia somehow cheapens the whole collection of knowledge, but that argument basically reduces to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Encyclopedia Britannica had to carefully choose articles because it paid people to write them and paid to print them. We don't have those costs. Returning to Finwe, he is a minor character in a major work, but one who is important to several of the philosophical issues that stand behind the work. Wikipedia's minimum standard of notability is "discussion in multiple reliable third-party sources" and Finwe is over that bar. I see absolutely no benefit to Wikipedia in shifting the information about him to another page and redirecting there (merging) or deleting it. Sorry to go on for so long, I also care about precedent, and I am hoping I can persuade you, and others, to preserve a little more and delete a little less. Francis Bond (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hear, hear. Note also, the Foundation's concern about declining participation in Wikipedia which is the subject of a current banner notice. The discussion there indicates that aggressive deletionism is a factor in driving editors away and we should be sensitive to this concern. Tolkien is a major author whose works are the subject of detailed and continuing scholarship. There are numerous third party encyclopedia and reference works which detail aspects of those works such as this and so it is proper for us to summarise their findings. Moving material about from one place to another is unproductive and not the purpose of AFD, which is to delete items which have no value at all. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doing a quick search engine test, I did not find reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability. In reliable sources, I only found trivial mentions, which, in my opinion, do not show that the topic meets the general notability guideline by itself since most of them are analysis of Tolkien's work as a whole, not about the individual fictional character. Within the article, there are only two sources, one of them a primary source, and none of them amounts more than a plot-description, which does not show how is this character notable in a real-world context. Most of the sources that I found are about the plot of Tolkien's work, not about the fictional character Finwë. I have yet to find a reliable source that addresses in detail the fictional character Finwë with more than one paragraph or that at least talks about the relevance of the character outside of Tolkien's work. Tolkien works are notable, as demonstrated by the many literary criticism essays, but notability is not inherited to every content fork. Per the policy what Wikipedia is not, since this article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context or sourced analysis and I do not believe that there is evidence that shows that the fictional character itself meets the general notability guideline, I do not think that the article should be kept. Jfgslo (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you also address the sources that have been identified during this debate? Francis Bond (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I will omit the first eight mentioned in the first keep comment since Crisco 1492 has already pointed out that they are just passing reference or rehash of information found in first party sources and also the ones in De728631's comment since plot descriptions do not show notability. Hits within a book are in no way a measure of the quality of the references, and passing mentions from a plot-only point of view also do not show notability.

The ones that I have verified do not talk about the fictional character. For example, J.R.R. Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion by Richard Purtill doesn't address the fictional character and it's barely mentioned in page 166 in reference to Fëanor, but not in a real-world context.

In I Am in Fact a Hobbit: An Introduction to the Life and Works of J. R. R. Tolkien by Perry C. Bramlett, Finwë is only mentioned in one paragraph and in regards to his marriage with Míriel and, in fact, it is only used as an example of the real subject of the text, Tolkien's works and how he explored some topics. Same with Tolkien in the land of heroes: discovering the human spirit by Anne C. Petty. Note that none of these books cover the fictional character in detail or give analysis of it, they only mention the character as an example of Tolkien's work and even then it is not in detail.

Arda reconstructed: the creation of the published Silmarillion by Douglas Charles Kane once again does not treat the character significance in a real-world perspective but instead it is a description of how Tolkien developed the Silmarillion and how the concepts came to be, such as the Finwë and Míriel story. Using this as an example of the character notability is the same as saying that any concept that was developed in the Silmarillion is notable. Similarly, The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth is once again an account of the history behind the creation of Tolkien's work and again does not show how Finwë is notable in a real-world context.

So, the sources given here and in the article in discussion in this AfD don't show how the character is notable outside of Tolkien's work. The concept and creation accounts do not show notability in any way, they are merely a description of how the fictional character was created, which is the only thing that is supported in the sources cited here or in the article.

More importantly, none of the cited sources gives a detailed review of the fictional character without relying on explaining it from the perspective of the plot of the books. This, in my opinion, shows that Tolkien's books are the notable ones and that this character, Finwë, is not notable outside of them and, therefore, does not have real-world significance by himself, contrary to Frodo Baggins who is easily referenced from a real-world perspective without relying on the plot of the books and for whom sources that aren't related to analysis of Tolkien's work are available. Jfgslo (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This discussion confuses significance, which virtually no fictional constructs have in the "real world," and "real world" notability (as opposed to "in-universe" notability.) Aquaman and John Steed have precious little if any "real world significance" either, but they are notable because of the third party coverage satisfying the GNG. Much of the coverage dismissed here by Jfgslo is precisely the sort of coverage that demonstrates notability; the coverage described from "Arda reconstructed" -- exposition of "how the concepts came to be, such as the Finwë and Míriel story" -- is almost a paradigm of what we look for regarding fictional characters. To dismiss the coverage by saying that accepting it as indicating notabilitywould be "the same as saying that any concept that was developed in the Silmarillion is notable" is just wrong -- it is the same as saying that any concept whose development in the (various evolving stages of) the Silmarillion is covered by reliable third-party sources is notable, and that's virtually a tautology. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind you that Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works and that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. If no sources provide real-world context then articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work, which is not material for Wikipedia. "Almost a paradigm of what we look for regarding fictional characters" according to whom?

Also, comparing how other articles treat fictional characters has nothing to do with the individual merit of this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). John Steed is a terrible example since his article is in terrible shape and in fact doesn't show reasons to be kept. Aquaman's notability is not particularly well established in his article either, which is why it is not a good article, but it can be inferred that it has notability since the character is recognizable outside of its original medium as shown in Aquaman in popular media. Is Finwë known outside of anything related to it's original medium? If you want to compare Finwë to other fictional characters in Wikipedia, then I would recommend to use Superman, which shows real-world context for his notability. The sources provided within the article and here show that Finwë is only notable within the fictional work. He is merely a character in Tolkien's work, no more notable than others fictional characters that are not known outside of their original stories. All these cited sources only show that Tolkien's work is the subject of several literary criticism studies, but they still don't show that Finwë is notable as a fictional character instead of just a plot-point in Tolkien's work. And if a fictional character doesn't have significance outside of their original work, then they should not have an article. In my opinion, the fictional character does not meet WP:GNG because all sources provided are either trivial mentions or do not treat the character (the subject of the sources cited here is the development of Tolkien's work, "Finwë and Míriel story" at best, but not the fictional character) and it also is not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:PLOT, as I also mentioned in my original rationale for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That line of argumentation is totally unsupported by policy. It seems you are trying to push for some concept of "real world notability, requiring real world significance", but the community never endorsed anything like that; and even rejected specific fiction notability guidelines along those lines (not even that drastic it seems). The only notability that matters is WP:GNG, and this is satisfied, I don't see how this point can be disputed; you may not see it after a "quick search engine test", but the sources cited above prove it.

Now, in addition to this, articles should be able to satisfy relevant content policies, such as WP:PLOT but this is distinct of notability. Then again, there are sources which can provide for more than just plot information. The article can discuss the reception and significance of the character: there has been commentaries, of sociological nature regarding the remarriage (cf Tolkien: myth, morality, and religion, Mythprint, etc), criticism for not including more of it in the Silmarillion (cf Arda reconstructed), many commentaries regarding the importance of the character in Tolkien's mythology (his story with Miriel is called an 'important element' by companion & guide), which is a literary subject of its own, so definitely "real-world". Cenarium (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, neither the sources here nor the ones within the article show that it covers the WP:GNG, because Finwë as an individual fictional character is not the subject of the literary analysis works in any of these. At best, the one thing that's analyzed is "Finwë and Míriel story" as a whole. In fact, the "Concept and creation" section of the article doesn't treat Finwë's creation but how in the different drafts he had different children. The main claim of notability is that the character has several Google hits within books that analyze Tolkien's work without taking into consideration whether the hits are for trivial mentions or not. The ones that aren't trivial mentions are for "Finwë and Míriel story", which shows notability for that, not for the individual characters. None of the sources provide here or in the article address Finwë in detail and per the WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail and it is more than a trivial mention, so I still don't see how these sources somehow provide evidence of presumed notability. As you exemplified, it is Finwë's marriage with Miriel the one thing that is notable according to the sources provided, not the individual fictional character Finwë. Jfgslo (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:GNG says also that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Significant coverage does not at all mean that we need a Finwe-only coverage but it is sufficient if the character has been significantly mentioned and partially analysed in secondary texts. And that criterion is clearly met here with the sources provided above. De728631 (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting the first part, which specifically says that significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The main subject of the sources is Tolkein's work and the subtopic that is addressed in detail in some of the sources is Finwë and Míriel story, which does receive some real-world context regarding the relationship between the two characters. Finwë, the fictional character, is not the subject of anything more than trivial mentions. If anything, some sources merely repeat part of the plot of The Silmarillion when mentioning Finwë, which makes them redundant and does not constitute analysis of the character, more in line with other fictional minor characters such as Mary Watson in Sherlock Holmes's books. So I do not think that the fictional character Finwë as a subject meets the criteria of the WP:GNG at all, much less WP:PLOT. Jfgslo (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary claim of notability of Finwë rests indeed in the "Finwë and Miriel story", as the sources define it. But you forget that the meaning of "directly in detail" is specified by what follows, i.e. "so no original research is needed to extract the content"; and clearly no original research is needed to extract content on the topic of Finwë as a fictional character from the coverage by the sources on the topic of the Finwë and Míriel story (Finwë, with Míriel, being, as one might imagine, the main subjects of it, and as can be verified in the examples of coverage provided, for example the subject of Finwë's remarriage directly concerns Finwë, the commentators consider his decision in light of its mortal status, etc). If you do maintain your point though, then I suggest the best way to address that is by creating (or moving Finwe to) an article on Finwë and Míriel, which may indeed be an improvement; but already as a topic, Finwë is acceptable. Cenarium (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are also forgetting that coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion, per the WP:GNG, and the sources that talk about Finwë do it so from a plot perspective, which makes them WP:PLOT, material that falls into what Wikipedia is not. Certainly, that wouldn't be OR, just repeating plot. Other sources only talk about the drafts of Finwë and Míriel story. So, the sources merely repeat information from the plot or the drafts (in which Finwë and Míriel story is the subject), but do not give any kind of real-world context regarding the reception or significance of Finwë as an individual character, so it is not a subject suitable for inclusion because it falls into WP:NOT. The current article reflects this, since it does not provide significance or reception for Finwë as an individual character. In fact, the article provides real-world significance for Finwë and Míriel story (relying on primary sources by the way), not Finwë, which means that it is extrapolating the significance of Finwë and Míriel story to the individual character Finwë, even though Finwë does not have significance by himself. Even if you believe that Finwë as an individual fictional character meets the WP:GNG, if the sources cannot provide reception and significance for the fictional character, then the character does not need to be included in Wikipedia. And discussing a character's decision from a plot-perspective is not reception or significance. And, by the way, I do not believe that Finwë and Míriel story deserves an article either, even if the concept shows notability, because that would be a complete exposition of all possible details regarding the Silmarillion instead of a summary of accepted knowledge. Jfgslo (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT merely rules out articles that only consist of plot summaries. But the current article has two sections that inform on the literary concept and on the significance of the Finwe and Miriel story with regard to the literary evolution of Tolkien's entire legendarium. This does of course reference the plot of the Silmarillion but it doesn't fall under WP:PLOT. Instead the two out-of-universe sections provide reliable external views on the subject. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned, two sections, one of which does not treat Finwë as the topic and which is the one that shows significance for the fictional work, equating Finwë and Míriel story with Finwë, the individual character. The other section provides the concept and creation of Finwë's family, not even even Finwë himself, nothing related to the character's reception or significance. WP:PLOT is clear when it says that Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works, and there is nothing of the sort for the individual fictional character by himself. It is always Finwë and Míriel story as a whole the subject that shows presumption of reception and significance. And I already mentioned what I think about Finwë and Míriel story. Jfgslo (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the Finwë and Míriel story is a particular aspect of the topic of Finwë as fictional character. I really don't see how you can argue that the story of a fictional character is unrelated to that fictional character. Sources may focus their attention on a particular aspect of Finwë as fictional character, but it certainly constitutes valid coverage for assessing notability. Independently of this AFD, for editorial reasons, it may be better to have the article Finwë and Míriel and redirect Finwë and Míriel there, but this is not a reason to delete Finwë. And again, WP:PLOT requires that there exists some valid non-plot coverage on the topic (which exists in this case), certainly not that only non-plot coverage is valid for notability-assessment purposes; the satisfaction of WP:PLOT is totally distinct of notability considerations. Cenarium (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to House of Finwe. Cenarium's analysis is sound, and there's no solid basis for deletion, but the article as currently presented is rather skimpy, and the content probably would be more useful both to casual users and to Tolkien devotees if placed into an article providing a broader perspective. If the article can be expanded to more solidly establish the significance of the character within Tolkien's cosmology, or if the history character's conception could be expanded, it would be easier to sustain a discrete article, but in any event the content should be kept. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cenarium. If there is not a consensus for that view, I think that List of Middle-earth Elves or House of Finwe are reasonable merge targets. This should not be a red link as it is a plausible search term (e.g. he has an entry in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth). Eluchil404 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete or weak merge to either House of Finwe or The Silmarillion. This is coming from a Tolkien fan too. I agree with Crisco, where a lot of more important characters in their respective works do not have their own article, but it's obviously WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Finwe, while important to the history of Middle Earth, is not important in the real world. Most third party are really only referencing the work, and many have admitted that Finwe is only mentioned in passing. The only really valid source is The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide, mentioned previously. Because of this reference, merge is a possible option instead of a delete. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification -- The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide actually relates Finwe to the real world, claiming it to be an important element of mythology. The The evolution of Tolkien's mythology: a study of The history of Middle-earth might be a valid source as well, but I haven't read the chapter on Finwe to say for sure. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the points made by Cenarium. /Julle (talk) 15:55, 11 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, -- Cirt (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all major characters in Tolkien's writings are notable , not just the ones in LOTR. Christopher Tolkien's books about his father's work are good secondary sources DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why does this keep getting relisted? Concensus is keep. AfD hero (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the consensus (Personally I think that it isn't yet... quite a few good arguments from both the keeps and the deletes/merges), it may not be clear enough; hence the relisting ("so a clearer consensus may be reached". Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the concensus had been the other way around, it would have been deleted without a relisting. This creates an imbalance where "concensus" is judged more harshly for keeping articles than for deleting them. AfD hero (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus has been reached. As I noted above, I don't think there is a clear consensus yet; although it is clear that there will not be an out-and-out deletion, a merger is still a possibility and has many strong arguments for it. The keeps also have strong arguments. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting should be only for pages which received little comment initially. Unclear consensus should default to 'Keep'. --12.42.51.27 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there are enough sources to justify an article here. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is based primarily on Christopher Tolkien's books about his father's work, which are not independent sources as required under WP:GNG and WP:V, and can't be used to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia's guidelines for independence state ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". The History of Middle Earth is a collection of scholarly analyses of Tolkien's work, including much hitherto unpublished material. Specifically, they are examples of "books published by respected publishing houses" WP:SOURCES. There is absolutely no problem in using them to WP:verify notability. Francis Bond (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is partly based on Christopher Tolkien's books. The other sources would be sufficient even if these were discounted. I agree with Francis regarding History of Middle-earth. Any interpretation of the rules that says that a series of 12 lengthy books released by a major publisher over a 13-year period (and that have remained in print to the present day) do not count towards notability is wrong. I'd have some sympathy with an argument that you can't get a neutral perspective by only examining Christopher Tolkien's work (the article doesn't do this, btw), but that's not the point under discussion. 4u1e (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While Christopher Tolkien's works may be considered to have been written independently of the original works, I don't think we can consider them to be independent enough to prove notability. Second-party sources at best, maybe. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 22 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. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuanku Jaafar Power Station[edit]

Tuanku Jaafar Power Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:GNG. not all power stations are notable. all it gets is 2gnews hits [7], which includes major Malaysian newspaper New Straits Times. for some strange reason, this article has a Norwegian language not Malay version. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable structure. Keb25 (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs references, for sure, but there are enough search results to satisfy notability criteria. It is also sometimes referred as Port Dickson Power Station. Just some random search hits [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Beagel (talk) 18:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Peña (baseball)[edit]

Luis Peña (baseball) (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 minor league baseball player. No longer playing baseball professionally and only pitched a year (poorly) at Triple-A. References are WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Has not played at the highest level, so doesn't pass WP:NSPORTS and hasn't non-routine coverage, so doesn't pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:WPBB/N which clearly states that a player must have played in the major league level. Does not meet WP:GNG, as it does not have significant coverage in multiple sources. There is only in-depth coverage in one source while the others are WP:ROUTINE coverage that only briefly mentions Peña. Overall, there is a lack of in-depth coverage in multiple sources to demonstrate notability of a WP:Run-of-the-mill minor league player. —Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 21 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 per consensus and per CSD G4. Not identical but close enough. No need for the salt shaker yet but I'll keep an eye on it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donny B. Lord[edit]

Donny B. Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find any significant coverage of subject in reliable sources since previous AfD concluded "delete". ^Bongo_matic 02:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt This is purely a self-promotional piece of puffery. MarnetteD | Talk 03:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for all the reasons given above, and the reasons given in the previous AfD. Yes, salt please. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete – recreation of previously deleted (AfD) material. ttonyb (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Although there is a significant acting role and at least one notable award, subject does not yet appear to meet the thresholds of WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Specifically, this person has not yet received significant coverage by independent sources that meet WP:RS. — Satori Son 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 speedy keep, more or less under criterion 1. The copyvio was axed by DGG, the page was moved to better target by TerriersFan, and tertiary educational institutions are notable. Everyone wins! Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern College, Santiago, Isabela, Philippines[edit]

Northeastern College, Santiago, Isabela, Philippines (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's title is too long and people might get confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncnians (talk • contribs)

• Speedy delete as copyright violation of [18]. The nom is not a good reason to delete; if there is a problem with the article's title, the title could be changed. But I take no position on that issue, because the copyright violation needs to be dealt with first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I stubbified it to remove the copyvio. The title may need some reformulation, but all established colleges are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Comment Just curious, aren't we required to delete an article once copyvio has been established, possibly under speedy delete, then recreate if it is notable? Something to do with the fact that the copyright violation will remain in the article's history, and you can't delete the history without deleting the whole page, via the license Wikipedia is under? Keeping it is technically illegal. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrators can hide or delete the offending revisions per WP:Revision deletion while keeping the article. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thanks. As long as that issue is taken care of, keeping would be the logical choice since it is a real institution of higher education. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the stub per DGG. This school is notable. A page move can address the nominator's concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All tertiary-level institutions are notable. Move to new title without the address. Moray An Par (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - all tertiary educational institutions are notable. I have moved the page. TerriersFan (talk) 14:53, 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 WITHDRAWN (non admin closure). RadioFan (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lying down game[edit]

Lying down game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

silly unremarkable fad. Any coverage has been in "news of the weird" or "bright" type news. Not the kid of significant coverage demanded by WP:GNG. Prod was contested with the entertaining but ridiculous claim that the fad is a "central pillar of Western Civilization.

Also nominating Planking (fad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for similar reasons. RadioFan (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Former arcticles:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lying Down Game
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Bullet (Lying Down Game) --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 14:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge at Planking (fad) due to the media related to fatality. This is notable in the way that Pole sitting is, an eminently silly fad of similar nature. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Planking (fad) has multiple broadsheet RS due to a fatality overnight. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Fifelfoo, I think there is sufficient news coverage to keep a short objective article on the fad. --99of9 (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (with redirect) and keep. Now that it's been in the mainstream news, it's a notable silly fad. I'd tentatively suggest Planking as the target, since that's the term used in the apparent major notability but could also see Lying down game if that's a well-established original term for it. DMacks (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article). What, coverage in The Times, The Telegraph, The Atlantic, and France 24 is not enough? You want The Economist and Foreign Affairs? Give it a while and I can probably get you those. Notable entity which is reshaping our very definition of the important concept of "utterly pointless", and is perhaps no less than a stormcrow of the final collapse of the West. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge It may be silly but it is notable. Barrylb (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment yes it's received some coverage in reliable sources but let's use some WP:COMMONSENSE here. It's an article about kids laying on the ground and calling it a "thing". This is essentially something made up which is so ridiculous that it's getting some media coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MADEUP says things that have "not yet been featured in reliable sources" shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. This has. Barrylb (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I just heard it reported on BBC News; coupled w/ the refs given, I think that's enogh to show notability.  Chzz  ►  04:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has sufficient RS coverage, WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination notwithstanding. No opposition to an editorial merge with Planking (fad), but I don't see any reason it should be mandated by this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Planking (fad). It has received significant coverage recently, and although it is a silly fad, it's a notable silly fad. StuartH (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge; I'm not sure whether it's distinct. Discuss on the talk page. This is one of the rare peculiar things for which I saw sources before I saw the Wikipedia article DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Planking. Plenty of coverage, especially here in Oz where some drunk just killed doing it; and the disambiguation seems unnecessary since there are no other articles called Planking. Jpatokal (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has been in numerous reports lately. I agree it could go to Planking as it is the only topic with this title.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Sufficient press coverage for notability. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Planking. I would have said 'delete' before the recent fatality, but now someone has died doing it (leading to commentary from the Australian Prime Minister, amongst others) it's undoubtedly become notable. Robofish (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Planking (fad), not directly because it has been found notable by the media, but because it is a sociological phenomenon with many references on the internet. Surely we do not need to wait for it to become the topic of theses or be mentioned in a bestseller in order for it to be deemed notable by Wikipedia. Collieuk (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although, I think there is a merge issue. Someone made a dulpicate page a few weeks ago.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silver_Bullet_(Lying_Down_Game). The latest Australian news probably makes this now a speedy keep candidate http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/planking-death-australian-prime-minister. It has had multiple long articles in different National newspapers that clearly pass GNG. I have to say though that it is not what I would call a game but an activity and a risks section might be needed.Tetron76 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• withdrawn pretty clear that there is strong support for keeping this in some merged form. I'm widrawing the nomination and will leave it to those supporting retention of this article to deal with the merge issues. Please keep in mind that this is a shallow topic with similarly shallow coverage. A good article will most likely be created around the social aspects of this topic rather than the topic itself. Also please be careful to keep WP:NOT#JOURNALISM in mind as this article continues to evolve.--RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 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.