< 20 May	22 May >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Acuff[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger/author lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Acuff seems to fall under #2 & #3 in WP:CREATIVE Creative Professionals criteria as his blog and first book have been discussed in other forums by multiple independent parties. Also, his blog is noteworthy due to its uniqueness within a community and culture that has no other significant internal satirical voice. His contribution is noteworthy in the Christian community much like Max Lucado, another primary contemporary Christian author. --Thetrevr (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Neither 2 or 3 apply. He has neither originated "a significant new concept, theory or technique," or created "or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work." He has merely capitalized on an existing concept and his work is not significant. ttonyb (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Maybe that is true. But I suppose my question comes from what constitutes "significance." While the blog is a capitalization on an existing concept, what's unique is his contribution through the blog to the Christian community. This is a significant population and his name and work are both significant in that culture. I believe his career is at the point where people are looking into who he is because his name is continuing to gain notoriety. --Thetrevr (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – A blog and a few minor nn books are hardly a significant body of work. Regardless, sorry to say, a "contribution through the blog to the Christian community," is not criteria in WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Fair enough. I just figured since some of the people on this list had dedicated pages, it seemed appropriate that he would have the same. Either way, thanks for hearing me out on it. --Thetrevr (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My pleasure and don't give up hope. There may be others that disagree with me and support the inclusion. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Usual Caveats apply, however; it's possible that this individual will become more notable with time and exposure. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation in the future if he gains more coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The most significant coverage I could find was this blog on AOL from a Birmingham news writer. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Boniquet Rodríguez[edit]

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

Player who has never played above the Segunda División B in Spain, which is not a fully professional league, and where there is no evidence of enough media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Prod declined by admin because "more expert consideration needed for notability". Struway2 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. As he has not played in a fully pro league, clearly fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:54, 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 result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas da Silva[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The reason for contesting was Portuguesa is ambiguous and more expert assessment is needed on notability. Portuguesa refers to Associação Portuguesa de Desportos, however I cannot find any sourcing to verify the four appearances he supposedly made for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 09:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by Diannaa ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

APVTH[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND. PROD removed by anon without explanation. Singularity42 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. The band's name (including the supposed former name) combined with each album title comes back to absolutely nothing on Google. It also doesn't help that the article was created by the bandleader. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nom changes Delete to Speedy Delete. In my original Google search, I confused some of the sites as being independent reviews. Closer inspection revealed that anyone (i.e. the band leader) can post the information. Also, closer inspection of the label company is that it is operated by the band leader, with no other significant works. Had I looked closer originally, I would have also tagged it for speedy deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Luv'd Ones and delete history per consensus. If anybody thinks there's anything here worth merging let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Char Vinnedge[edit]

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

Questionable whether this person meets WP:MUSICBIO. Article on band has notability issues as well. PROD removed by author without explanation. Singularity42 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An interesting person, and perhaps somebody ahead of her time, but there is not substantia coverage about her. Work on Nitro Function is verifiable; even in Polish. There is coverage in blogs but even the blog coverage indicates that Vinnedge and her band didn't receive a lot of notice. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the author... I have to appologise for removing the "PROD". I did not know what it was as this is my first wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.241.7 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with removing a PROD - it just signifies that the deletion of the article is contested, and hence this discussion to come to a consensus. Singularity42 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Whpq. Does not meet notability criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some facts that should help for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charzach64 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, but there's nothing here in the way of sources to do so. —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok, I will add the sources this soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charzach64 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the Luv'd Ones, a band that I will give the benefit of the doubt. I added what I could find, which isn't much--certainly not enough for me to vote keep. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Professor X. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Protocols[edit]

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

Delete. There appear to be no reliable sources that cover this fictional concept. It has no real-world significance and can only be written about from an in-universe perspective. Suitable for an X-Men wiki but not for Wikipedia. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it "can only be written about from an in-universe perspective." Am I missing something that prevents a rewrite from fixing that? Cloveapple (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can only be written about from an in-universe perspective because there are no sources that support writing anything about it from a real-world perspective. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Professor X, as he's the guy who wrote them. Mathewignash (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Professor X. Kurt Parker (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Professor X.--Crazy runner (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that content had to be sourced to be merged. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Content ought to be sourced in all cases, regardless, but that doesn't mean it can't be sourced before or after the merge. BOZ (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. BOZ (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In-universe guff with no relevance outside of the primary material. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This is probably an appropriate redirect, and a few sentences on Professor X won't do any harm. --Anthem 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: The fictional protocols do not pass the general notability guideline nor can the subject be anything more than a plot-only description of a fictional work. A merge might be an acceptable outcome since they are related to the fictional character Professor X, although the content should be severely trimmed as extra details of the protocols would give undue weight to a non-notable concept. Jfgslo (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Three (Portugal)[edit]

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

No reliable sources demonstrate the notability of the topic. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of chaff from content forks, but the bit actually about the name is mere trivia. Dahn (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've trimmed the aforementioned chaff, and added some sources (including from some of Britain's biggest national papers + football magazines) to show notability. Giant Snowman 19:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the claim about the sources being from "some of Britain's biggest national papers + football magazines" is questioned (one is, in fact, a blog post). I also note that the Independent article simply mentions that the notion exists, which I don't think was being questioned - not every metaphor, superstition or seasonal aspect of football culture needs to receive its own wikipedia entry. Particularly since, in this case, we're talking about the collective nicknames of three clubs who each have their own article, and whose history of dominating the Port. league is well covered by the necessary articles and subarticles. To prove that this not merely a content fork, one would have to come up with sources showing some special cultural relevancy, some history of the term, something that makes the topic stand up on its own legs. Dahn (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like a notable topic. Google web and news searches for "Os Três Grandes" (rather than "Big Three") give some good results. —BETTIA— ^talk 09:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure plenty of news articles that cover the matches between the "big three" tend to mention the name as a collective attribute. To give you an analogy: In my own country, back in the day, there used to be reference to the "Bucharest clubs" that apparently no provincial team could hope to dethrone from the top of the league, for various speculated reasons. The notion has survived for long enough to be mentioned all over the sports pages, but the attribute "Bucharest teams" will still refer to, well, the teams of Bucharest, on which we have individual articles that cover all that remains to be covered. The situation here strikes me as similar, and I think the article should only exist if sourced by, say, essays showing the cultural or institutional significance of the term, not by blog posts and news items that simply are part of soccer folklore. Dahn (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's such a good analogy - Stauea and Rapid would naturally be referred to as the 'Bucharest clubs' as they are from Bucharest. From the sources I've seen, the Big Three / Tres Grandes is a common term used by both Portuguese and English language media to refer to these three clubs, in the same way that the two big Glasgow clubs are referred to as the Old Firm. The Portuguese version of this article also mentions that this term isn't restricted to football, but also other sports played by these clubs. Lastly, the requirement for an "essay" on the subject isn't part of any notability guidelines - in this case, we just need evidence this is a commonly used term. —BETTIA— ^talk 10:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My analogy referred to some of the clubs in Bucharest being referred to as "the Bucharest clubs" (for instance, Rocar was not, even when it played top division). The term was used as a metaphor for an informal category of clubs, just like this one: in the 1990s and even before, only "Bucharest clubs" (Steaua, Dinamo, Rapid) could be expected to win cups and titles. Per WP:Sports event: "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees-Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline, and additionally must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial [emphasis mine], reliable sources." I think what is needed would be sources (and text based on those sources) that explain the history and relevance of the term, not just that the term is used a lot in match commentary. The ball is round, for instance, is another equally widespread footballing cliché, and you'll find it in all sorts of reliable sources that make footballing folklore, but I don't think we should be expecting the article to pop up. Presently, all the sources validate at the moment is an addition at Big Three disambig: "a collective term for the Portuguese clubs Benfica, F.C. Porto and Sporting Clube de Portugal". Dahn (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - more sources added. Giant Snowman 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like it meets WP:GNG and this kind of topic certainly can be notable (i.e. Original Six). Qrsdogg (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliviu Craznic[edit]

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

Let's start by going through the notes and links to show why they don't demonstrate notability.

Note 1 is a blog post by his publishers, and doesn't count as independent.
- Suspans is not a blog, but an on-line magazine with ISSN, and is not one of his publishers, Craznic begin the colabortion with Suspans after he was interviewed by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 2 is a blog post and is not verifiable.
- It si verifiable, because the mention appered on a lot of other blogs and on-line magazines, most notable Realitatea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 3 is yet another blog post.
Note 4 is another blog post.
Note 5: yet another blog post.
Note 6, a blog post.
- This is a blog post about an article in Familia magazine, a magazine with ISSN, well known and being published starting to XIX century. The article can be verified in Revista Familia'a archive, on net or on paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 7, a series of Craznic's blog posts.
- Not blog posts, articles in a magazine with ISSN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note 8, a blog post.
Note 9, a blog post.
Note 10, a blog post.
Note 11, a blog post.
Note 12, a blog post by Craznic.
Note 13, a blog post by Craznic.
Note 14, a blog post by Craznic.
Note 15, a sale page for his book from his publisher.
Note 16, a blog post.
Link 1, a blog post by Craznic.
Link 2, a blog post.
Link 3, a blog post.
Link 4, a blog post.
Link 5, a blog post.
Link 6, Craznic's blog.
Link 7, his publisher's blog.
Link 8, a sale page for his book from his publisher.
Link 9, a blog post.
- The blog posts mentioned there contains references to the books published on paper. There are all in the National Library, and in a lot of libraries all over the net.
- Here are some mentions made not by his publishers: http://www.evenimentul.ro/articol/prima-antologie-de-steampunk-romanesc.html http://www.teenpress.ro/interviuri/interviu-oliviu-craznic/ http://www.sfin.ro/articol_22829/roman_romanesc_cu_vampiri_nemti_din_franta.html There are a lot more, it is enough to check the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next, let's note that Craznic receives essentially no mention in Romania's leading newspapers: Evenimentul Zilei, Cotidianul, Adevărul, Jurnalul Naţional, Gândul.

These are not cultural magazines. Still there is mentions in other very popular not cultural magazines, as TV Satelit (no.4/2011), TVMania (no. 7/2001), Popcorn (no. 1/2011) and so on, all of these being official magazines, means having and ISSN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's note that even in Romania's leading literary magazines, he receives no mention or passing mention: 22, România Literară, Observator Cultural.

Observator cultural mentions Craznic often enough.Familia has an article dedicated to him, the same Luceafarul de dimineata (official publication of the USR, The National Union of Romanian Writers) who also mentions him in some articles,one being dedicated entirel to him, and other literary magazines do this also.
Check here:
http://arhiva.revistafamilia.ro/, check the no.7-8/2010, an article dedicated to Craznic
http://www.revistaluceafarul.ro/index.html?editie=132, no. 9/2011, an entire article dedicated to him by Horia Garbea, the president of official Bucharest Writers Association (ASB)
http://www.revistaluceafarul.ro/index.html?id=2691&editie=117, no. 43/2010, here is mentioned his activity of Club de proza in an article by Oana Calin. Club de proza is a club for writers moderated by Constantin Stan, the president of Prose section of the official ASB.
http://www.jurnaluldearges.ro/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=157:i-la-sfarit-a-mai-rmas-comarul-&catid=8:cultura&Itemid=9
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/FANTASY-SCIENCE-FICTION.-Premiile-SF-ului-romanesc*articleID_25298-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/FANTASY-SCIENCE-FICTION.-Playback-la-BookLand*articleID_25265-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/FANTASY-SCIENCE-FICTION.-Final-Frontier-(I)*articleID_25167-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/FANTASY-SCIENCE-FICTION.-O-primavara-frumoasa...*articleID_25094-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/FANTASY-SCIENCE-FICTION.-Saptamina-SF-14-20-februarie*articleID_24996-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Aparitii-editoriale-2010/-autori-romani*articleID_24968-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/Aparitii-editoriale-2010/-autori-romani*articleID_24968-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/FANTASY-SCIENCE-FICTION.-Saptamina-SF*articleID_24834-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/FANTASY-SCIENCE-FICTION.-2010*articleID_24688-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/FANTASY-SCIENCE-FICTION.-Lunga-vara-fierbinte*articleID_24258-articles_details.html
http://www.observatorcultural.ro/FANTASY-SCIENCE-FICTION.-...si-la-sfirsit-a-mai-ramas-bucuria*articleID_23893-articles_details.html
etc.
and more:
in Nautilus, an ISSN magazine, well known and respected along scie-fie specialists:
http://revistanautilus.ro/recenzii/un-cosmar-bine-dozat/
http://revistanautilus.ro/articole/si-la-sfarsit-a-mai-ramas-cosmarul/
http://revistanautilus.ro/recenzii/singura-solutie-inc-o-revolutie/
http://revistanautilus.ro/editoriale/excedent-si-pib-sefistic/
and more, and more, and more, in many cultural magazines, most of all dedicated to science-fiction of course, though not all of them. Too many for being enlisted here.
Well, if this is not a notable author, I rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's also note that the article was worked on by four single-purpose accounts.

In fairness, I will observe that Craznic (actual name, Crâznic, I might add) is nominated for something called the Galileo Awards. But the prize doesn't go out for another week, and we have no idea if the award actually means anything. As of now, this is a promotional piece about a man who clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. Should his notability be demonstrated in reliable sources at a later date, the article can be rewritten from those sources. But no notability is apparent at present. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I note the intense self-promotion, in the article and all over the net, but, unfortunately for the author, he seems to be utterly irrelevant to all reliable sources, and his name is discounted by even the specialized since-fiction and fantasy columns of the Romanian literary press. At best (as Soul Asylum once said:) sometime to return. Dahn (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, Oliviu Craznic is very present and appreciated by science-fiction and literary magazines, as Observator cultural, Luceafarul de dimineata, Suspans, Nautilus, Familia, all this having ISSN (means they are officialy in the National Library), he was more than one time at TVR Cultural, he was at Radio Romania Cultural and at TVRM, he gained awards and his books are in many libraries. All the blogs who mention his name are specialized on literature and on science-fiction literature. Anyway, this is a clear attempt of someone who wants to deleting him (you can see the one who made the proposol, Biruitorul, means in Romanian The Winner, and he says very merry that Craznic Failed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC) — Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not to be deleted, keep the article, the author is very well known in our country, due to his constant presence on science fiction media (Nautilus magazine, Suspans magazine, Galileo Magazine etc..) but also on the publications related to cultural activity ( USR, ASB and other official magazines). Praising reviews of his book appear in Familia, Nautilus, Luceafarul de dimineata, Gazeta SF, Jurnalul de Arges, Curierul Vaii Jiului, Ziarul Vaii Jiului, Teenpress, Saptamana Financiara etc.. The main TV and radio cultural channels from Romania, TVR Cultural, TVR1 and Radio Romania Cultural presented more than once interviews and news about the author. He also keeps public conferences and readings, being invited by official writers clubs like Club de proza (romanian museum of literature) and others.

The links below are quite enough for me, though there is more than this, if you want to check out.

There are in Romania only four official magazines registered to National library (ISSN)dedicated to SF, fantasy &horror. All these four official magazines have extensive articles and many mentions and recordings about Oliviu Craznic. These magazines are Nautilus, Suspans, Galileo and Gazeta SF. Other important magazine is SRSFF which is not officially registered at National Library with ISSN. Still this magazine also mentiones briefly the activity of Oliviu Craznic in some articles. He also is invited periodically by the SRSFF members at Prospectart and other events so, as long as the all four official sf publications are referring to the author's activity in many and large articles, the notability is more than clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CptSisko (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC) — CptSisko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - two new sockpuppets have arrived, one of whom has inserted four further links into the article. One is an Amazon sale page (no comment) two are blog posts by Craznic (same) and one is a roundup of blog posts (sigh). We're dealing with a frenzied self-promoter, but one who apparently hasn't read WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SELFPUB, WP:N, WP:AUTH and a slew of other policies. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again - the presence on Amazon atests some notability. The blog posts by Craznic contain links to other blog post, and also to an official publication with ISSN. And you can see above I added DOZENS of links from OFFICIAL publications WITH ISSN. What is so hard to understand? The one who put the notes was not inspired in choosing more blog posts than official publications, but this not makes Craznic less present in official magazines. Sorry to dissapoint, Biruitorule. However, let's let aside the accusations and let us let the administrators check the links added in this discussion (Observator cultural, Nautilus, Familia, Suspans, Luceafrul de dimineata mainly - all being OFFICIAL MAGAZINES WITH ISSN, not blogs, not sites, not anything like this. ) Note: I just added in the article only links to official registered publications of Romanian National Library, changing most of the links as Nausyk suggested. We have now a majority of reliable and verifiable links, all of them related to well-known and respect cultural magazines, some dedicated to sci-fi, some to mainstream, all of them writing extensively and/or often about Oliviu Craznic. I ask the administrators to check those links and take the decision based on them and on the other links above, not on arguments ill-intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion to this debate is that, though only some of the notes and links in the articles are reliable, most indicating other sources to be check, most of the links added above in this page are verifiable and reliable, being links to cultural registered magazines and newspapers, and containing both passing notes and extensive articles about the literary activity of Oliviu Craznic. This article is to be kept, my proposal is to change some of the links and notes inserted in the article with more reliable sources, which can be taken from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nausyk (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC) — Nausyk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep the article, the notability proved by reliable links to official ISSN magazines. All science fiction magazines wrote about the book (large and many articles) and some of the official cultural magazines ( Familia, Luceafarul de dimineata etc..)did this also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyar (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — Sawyar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Let's summarize. 1. We have extended articles (sometimes a few pages) about Oliviu Craznic in ALL four science fiction magazines registered at Romanian National Library (Nautilus, Suspans, Gazeta SF, Galileo), and in a lot of other non-registered publications (for example, Agentia de carte is a site administrated by two officials of ASB, Bucharest Writers Association, one of them, Cipariu, being also one of the presidents of ASB, which makes this kind of sites being reliable and verifiable). See links above and check the net for others, because I checked and they are a lot. Though what we have here is more than enough. 2. We have some extended articles and a lot of passing or briefly mentions in cultural registered magazines (some of them being official publications of Union of Romanian Writers), with a strong tradition in Romanian cultural world, such as Familia, Luceafarul de dimineata, Observator cultural etc.See links above and check the net for others, because I checked and they are a lot. Though what we have here is more than enough. 3. We have important writers and critics with reviews about Craznic, such as Liviu Radu and Horia Garbea etc. (members of the official Union of Romanian Writers, Garbea being also the president of ASB)See links above and check the net for others, because I checked and they are a lot. Though what we have here is more than enough. 4. We have both extended articles and briefly notes in a lot of newspapers and magazines all over the country (even Pitesti - Junralul de arges, Hunedoara - Curierul Vaii Jiului, Oradea - Familia, Cluj - TV Satelit, Brasov - Caiete silvane, of course Bucharest etc), in popular publications (such as Popcorn and TV mania), and all over the sites and blogs dealing with science fiction or at least with general literature. 5. We have at least shows at TVRM and TVRCultural, at Radio Romania Cultural, and some passing mentions on TVR1, which means presence in the television and radio media also (of course, at cultural channels). 6. We have public conferences, one of them being at the Museum Of Romaninan Literature, a public reading at the invitation of Constantin Stan, the president of Prose Section in the official ASB, and at least 2 public debates on Final Frontier, the single Science Fiction Festival in Romania, both debates being noted in Observator cultural and other media as being most succesfull. 7. Most of the blog posts are not simply blog posts, being in fact electronic official magazines (Suspans), containing links to official electronic magazines (Galileo), containting easy verifiable quotations from written papers (Familia) etc. 8. The Galileo Awards did mean something, as long as they are the awards of an official registered magazine with ISSN, and they are mentioned in Observator cultural and other official literary magazines. These are also the singe science fiction awards of a Romanian magazine, and they consists in important money, trophee and diploma. 9. All of these were achieved by Craznic in less than an year from his first appearance in the cultural world. This means he is more than notabale, as long as old writers cannot get more than passing mentions in such magazines as Familia, Luceafarul, Observator, and very few writers gain more than one mention there. Keep the article. Notable author, third-parties attests this, non-promotional article, containing only facts recongnized in Romaninan literature. Nota bene: there is a well-known fight between science fiction parties in Romania This is probable an attempt of an envious rival. Note the Biruitorul is a Romanian. This is at least strange, to want so bad to delete from wikipedia a colleague. And this debate itself is a proof of notability. Otherwise, what would insist so much a ROMANIAN with the deletion?! Just check the links above, you'll see Craznic is considered a very important youn writer, who managed to surpass a lot of old ones - this of course was not very pleasent for them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtanners (talk • contribs) 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC) — Jtanners (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Another strogn reason to keep the article according to WP:Author is Craznic introduced the gothic in Romanian Literature (see in the links above at Familia - The Walpole Moment in Romanian Literature). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC) WELL, CRAZNIC JUST WAS ANNOUNCED TO BE THE WINNER OF GALILEO AWARDS FOR THE BEST NOVEL OF THE YEAR, ANNOUNCEMENT BEING MADE IN GALILEO ONLINE, OFFICIAL REGISTERED MAGAZINE AT NATIONAL LIBRARY. THE FESTIVITY OF GALILEO AWARDS WILL BE KEPT TOMORROW AT BOOKFEST, THE BIGGEST BOOK FESTIVAL IN ROMANIA. THE GUESTS AT THE FESTIVITY OF CRAZNIC'S AWARD ARE OFFICIAL MEMBERS OF USR, UNION OF ROMANIAN WRITERS - SUCH AS LIVIU RADU, ONA FRANTZ, MICHAEL HAULICA ETC., ALL OF THEM MULTIPLE-AWARDED ALONG THEIR CARRIERS, AND TRANSLATE DIN MANY LANGUEGES. NOT-NOTABILITY? ILLWILL AND NOTHING ELSE. IT IS NOW THE MOST NOTABLE FANTASY WRITER IN ROMANIA. KEEP THE ARTICLE, YOU HAVE ALL THE PROOFS POSSIBLE - NO DISCUSSION CAN BE NOW. http://revista-galileo.ro/laurea%c8%9bii-premiilor-galileo-2011.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, let's not get that excited over some blog post in some random magazine holding some publicity-generating event. There's still precious little evidence that Craznic is "regarded as an important figure by peers", "has created a significant or well-known work", or that his work "has won significant critical attention" (WP:AUTHOR) or that he "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (WP:BIO). As I showed earlier, the man, despite his frenetic self-promotion, is utterly irrelevant to all reliable sources, where he receives at best passing mention. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "brand new magazine" creates the impression Galileo is a new magazine, made by some new, unknown amateurs - it is not the case. The magazine could be "brand new", but its administrators are clearly not - they are experienced writers from the Union of Romanian Writers (prime members), and they also had a column of literary critic in Observator cultural, official cultural magazine with long back tradition. So this brand new awards are an effort of the old and reknown promoters. These awards are taken very seriously on the literary world - you can see it was published even a book with the texts nominated. The awards were announced in Observator cultural, Nautilus and other ISSN magazines, and on most cultural sites and blogs in Romania. They were also announced on the official national cultural Radio Romania Cultural. Keep the article. Also, the awards consists in money, trophee, diploma, a festivity at the most important Book Festival and also in publishing the nominee texts in a book. This is not looking minor to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CptSisko (talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Biruitorul does not get it. It is not a blog post, it is an article in an official magazine. And the above sources and links, all reliable as I already show, being all official magazines, had extended articles, not passing mentions. This is not a single statement from Biruitorul which can be close to the truth: he says these are blog posts, when they are articles in official registered cultural magazines; he says they are passing mentions, when in fact are extendend articles; he says the sources are note reliable, when they clearly are, as long as they have the official ISSN; etc. Well, I end the talk here, being all to clear to me. I will not answer to Biruitorul or his friends any longer - it is clear malevolence and denying the clear truth. I ask the administrators of this site to check again the links inserted here in this discussion, this says pretty much all. I believe it is not possible to ignore dozens and dozens of links to official magazines (NOT blogposts). So - do your decision please, but keep this in mind: let the facts and the links speak,not false arguments contrary to reality (blog post, yeah, luceafarul de dimineata, familia and nautilus are blog posts - this is an offens to the romanian culture, and to the science fiction romanian culture also. sad.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR at this time. The Galileo Award is not a major award; it is a brand-new award given by a brand-new (2010) magazine. [1] --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though a new award, the Galileo Award is a major one - practically there is no science fiction fan in Romania who does not read the Galileo online version, along with Nautilus, Suspans and Gazeta. We have only these four magazines for science fiction, so we read them all. But this is subjectiv. An objective proof of the importance of these awards: The festivity was today the subject of Radio Romania Cultural, the most important official cultural radio channel in Romania (Oliviu Craznic was guest at the show). As the links above attests, these awards are also mentioned in official cultural magazines (e.g.Observator cultural) and in official science fiction magazines (e.g.Nautilus). More articles of course will appear soon, after the festivity. The festivity also had official important speakers, like Liviu Radu (Union of Romanian Writers Member), Michael Haulica (the same), Mircea Oprita (the most important Romanian critic in science fiction after the death of Ion Hobana and officialy made Knight and Sir by our president for his literary activity), Catalin Badea Gheracostea (important critic) etc. A guest was also Alexandru Mironov, well-known in Romanian Science Fiction, and other Florin Pitea, University professor and critic. Also, this brand new magazine features only important Romanian and foreign writers, which itself attests its importance on Romanian market. Let us mention that Robert Silverberg himself is working on a regular basis with Galileo. However, having an award is not essential condition for notability. Wikipedia states clear that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject. We have here Observator cultural, Familia, Luceafarul de dimineata, Nautilus, Suspans (before Craznic began to write articles for this magazine), Gazeta SF (before Craznic was published here - he was published in Suspans and Gazeta SF FOR his notability, after he gained it), Jurnalul de Arges, Popcorn, TV Mania, TV Satelit, Curierul Vaii Jiului, Caiete silvane, Ziarul Vaii Jiului, SRSFF, and a lot more secondary sources, reliable, independent of each other and of the subject. Wikipedia also states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; but it is not necessary, almost all the mentioned sourced cover deeply Oliviu Craznic's work (more articles, some of them having over 2 pages long about his book). Important is the author is a constant presence in official science fiction magazines (in ALL of them), and in some very important and with old tradition official cultural magazines, at official Radio Cultural, at official TVR Cultural and TVR1, at public debates (two of them at the Museum of National Literature, at Club de proza, official club of Constantin Stan, the president of Prose Section in Bucharest Writers Association), and so on and so forth. But I already told this. We can go like this forever, if the friends of Biruitorul enters and say that every link is a blog (though clearly is not, being official magazines), that every award is unimportant, that every magazine is not notable etc. These are not arguments - in this manner, I could saz that Hugo Awards are not important, because they are announced on a blog posts, and because the jury is made from unknown persons. So delete all the books with Hugo Awards. The importance of the award is given by how is looked in the science fiction world in that country - and the most reknown science fiction writers and critics took Galileo seriously. I do not know why you shouldn't do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Also: he won significant critical attention, this being more than clear if the links in this talk are checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaimarian2 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roly Platt[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any reliable sources to support the notability of this harmonica player. I can confirm he exists from album credits, blog entries, concert announcements and press releases, but no substantial coverage in reliable sources. I'd love to be proven wrong on this one. Pburka (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about this musician to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~WP:N~~ → ROUX ₪ 10:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete without prejudice. If someone wants to write a real article on this subject then go for it. I won't restore this to mainspace but if someone thinks it might be useful in creating a new article then let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Experiments[edit]

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

Term paper / original research. There have been a few such articles created lately on the subject of environment/ecology -- see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command and control regulation. Perhaps move to user space? Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 19:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Definitely do not userfy - WP is not a free host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An interesting read, but I'm afraid it violates WP:NOTESSAY. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite. Quick web search reveals that "Green experiments" have been underway for years already; added a few as external links. To turn the existing material into an encyclopedic article called "Green experiments," the text needs to be trimmed back to make room for adding material that reflects what is already being done, based on examples that illustrate how the term is currently used. The article as it stands reads like a personal essay with proposals. The current content would be more accurately titled "Theory of green experiment design." Trilliumz (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was : Speedily deleted - promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keyword Identifier[edit]

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

Somebody's proposed system for addressing documents on the web. No third-party references, and the scheme is not really possible to implement. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I tagged it for Speedy Deletion at same time as the AfD tag, and missed the edit conflict. This is a WP:COPYPASTE regarding the product copied from the manufaturer's website. WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12. Singularity42 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto-Montreal rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS. There's no indication of a rivalry in this article, merely some facts about the two cities put together in a way that's meant to appear to be a rivalry. I don't understand why the last AfD (in 2008) was kept per SNOW. This isn't a POV issue, this is a notability issue, as in there's nothing notable here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really see the purpose of this article. It states there's a rivalry but doesn't provide sources nor say what form the rivalry takes. I agree with the identification of WP:SYNTHESIS. Asnac (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more of a comparison between a few aspects of these cities than a description of inter-city rivalry. There is a notable professional hockey rivalry that is already addressed here: Maple Leafs – Canadiens rivalry, but the rest of it is WP:SYNTHESIS, and it's synthesis of information that doesn't even add up to prove that there is a notable Montreal-Toronto rivalry. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; nothing to add. → ROUX ₪ 03:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a substantial number of reliable sources on the Montreal-Toronto rivalry. [2][3][4][5][6][7] It goes way beyond sports. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's non-notable nonsense on the level of internecine highschool rivalries. And I say this as a Torontonian. → ROUX ₪ 05:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of hoohaw about the competition between Montreal and Toronto a few years back when the MSE and TSE merged, on how once again Toronto was overshadowing Montreal, and a few years earlier, when Montreal relinquished stock trading to Toronto, and became a derivatives exchange. With the LSE taking over the TMX, there's stuff in French language press about subjugation by the British, as a result of surrendering to Toronto. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure WP:SYNTHESIS you could make a Toronto-Los Angeles rivalry article similarly. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely a noteworthy topic, but it needs to be expanded. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that this article is overrun with OR/Synthesis problems, but I also think that a dedicated editor could find the sources to write a proper article on the subject. If deleted, I would say no prejudice should be given toward recreation. Reso lute 21:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Theron[edit]

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

The author of this article claims that this high school teacher is "notable" but does not provide any evidence to support this. The only claim of significance in this article is that the teacher has "co-written books relating to Engineering, Graphics & Design," and the fact that he is "distantly related to the actress Charlize Theron" does not establish notability per WP:INHERIT. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Patently not notable per WP:BASIC. I see it's been created by an SPA by the way.Asnac (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person in not notable as a high school teacher. I can find no evidence of awards or other recognition for his teaching. As an author, co-writing a couple of text books is not notable. I can find no evidence that this is a widely used teaching text or had other significant impact that would establish notability. And of course, being distantly related to Charlize Theron is an intesting bit of trivia but that's all. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, no real claim to notability or evidence available to suggest he meets WP:BASIC. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. Subject lacks notability. Guoguo12 (Talk) 16:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four Horsemen (baseball)[edit]

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

Article concerns a non-notable neologism. Many teams and groups of players have nicknames. Not all are notable and neither is this. TM 17:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator rationale. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article should remain, as it is a reference to what ESPN calls the best starting pitching rotation in all of Major League Baseball history, which in the National League, dates 135 years back to 1876. It also alludes to the apocalyptic feeling that may be felt by opposing teams when they see the futility of facing these four vaunted pitchers. Between the four, there are three Cy Young Awards, a World Series MVP, the second no-hitter in all of MLB postseason history and only the 20th perfect game in MLB history, as well as 13 All-Star Game appearances. ESPN itself used the very term in a Jayson Stark article. ^[1] ^[2]Bill S. (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ ESPN.com article which used the term "the Four Horsemen" Retrieved 2011-05-21
^ Jayson Stark article which refers to the Phillies pitching rotation as possibly the best in MLB history Retrieved 2011-05-21

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this non-notable neologism. Wait for some enduring notability before recreating. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to 2011 Philadelphia Phillies season Per WP:NOTNEO, "articles on neologisms are commonly deleted ... To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The sources found for this article simply use the term. While ESPN is frequently cited as a source both in the article and in this AfD, WP:GNG expects multiple sources to establish notability. However, ESPN should be treated as a single source, as WP:GNG says "multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." A standalone article is not warranted. Instead of a standalone article, relevant content should be merged instead to 2011 Philadelphia Phillies season. —Bagumba (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really it's more practical to cover this in the 2011 Phillies season article. Creating an article for every turn of a phrase that ends up in some sports column isn't very sensible way to organize information in an encyclopedia. --74.138.214.5 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2011 Philadelphia Phillies season, per most of Bagumba's reasoning, although ESPN is hardly the only reliable source that uses the term, e.g., NBC CBS Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS source is probably not reliable reliable—its from a message board which is a repost from another sports blog. In any event, the key for an article is the need for sources about the term and not ones that use the term.—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nickname isn't particularly widespread or well-known. I agree with Bagumba's concerns about the CBS source. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per A7 by RHaworth. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calculus Group[edit]

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

The article looks like its notable but has no references. maucho eagle _(c) 17:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like an ad to me. SPA. And can't find anything that suggests notability required in WP:CORP.Asnac (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (Speedy?). This is a completely non notable business in Bangladesh. No significant coverage in Bangladeshi media, nor is it a big business entity there. The one liner article should have been speedied. --Ragib (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete without prejudice. Poorly sourced BLP. Only sources in the article are to youtube videos and what looks like a personal homepage. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the Sky[edit]

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

Not notable, not well ref, not very NPOV Macutty (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in Brampton[edit]

There's no precedent that I'm aware of for funnelling these all the way down to "individual year in individual city" spinoffs (hell, we don't even fork them out by state or province, let alone anything narrower than that) — and even if for some wacky reason we did actually want to start such a thing, there's no earthly reason why Brampton, a midsized suburb of Toronto which isn't even the primary city in its own county, much less a principal anchor community for the Greater Toronto Area as a whole or an internationally prominent metropolis in its own right, would be an even remotely logical place to begin doing it. In a nutshell, this sort of thing is literally begging to get turned into a local community corkboard where every non-notable club and community group in town feels entitled to post the deets for their own fundraising bakesales and church picnics and general meetings — note, frex, that there's already a listing for "Peel Children's Water Festival Family Day" — and that's just not what Wikipedia is for. And furthermore, the Years in Brampton index is structured to presume that this project will eventually go all the way back to the 1600s — two centuries before the city even existed in the first place. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but... Well, we have 2011 in Israeli Film, and 2011 in sumo. Is it so outrageous? It's true it doesn't really make sense at this time, i.e. to provide a yearbook for this suburb when they don't exist for other places. And I agree that the information provided does not all sit well in an encyclopaedia, especially regarding events that have not happened yet. But an annual snapshot of a population centre is a neat way of arranging information and for my part I would find it interesting and useful if a link to individual years existed for every population centre. But I think this would need to be a managed project to start with - and it would be a major undertaking.Asnac (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Okay, so it hasn't been done before? So what? Just because no one's taken the time to do such a project. It's not a quick process, digging through hundreds of trivial references to the city in regional media outlets, and thousands of articles in local outlets, to find the stories that matter. And thus, no one's tried, because it's a lot of time to devote. So?

"suburb": Yes, we are a suburb. But that's irrelevant, because 8 of the top 30 cities in Canada by population (List of the 100 largest municipalities in Canada by population) are suburbs of Toronto. (And yes, I'm counting Hamilton, because I went to college with people from Hamilton, I work with people from Hamilton, and the GO commuter transit goes to Hamilton.) I'd love to know what a large suburb would be, if Brampton's a "midsize suburb".
"isn't even the primary city in its own county": Primary by population? Sure, we've got Canada's 6th largest city in our region, so no, 11th largest city in the country isn't the biggest. But we are the "county seat", all regional (county) government happens here. Place us in the US? We'd be the 34th largest city.
At least half of the citations are for regional papers or media outlets (The Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation newspaper, or CTV Toronto), out-of-province papers (The Vancouver Sun), or national outlets (The Globe and Mail).
"much less a principal anchor community for the Greater Toronto Area as a whole": What would you consider a principal anchor community in the GTA? Other than Toronto itself, no one community stands above them all.
As for whether this is a logical place, it's not my fault that I'm from Brampton, and I find it interesting. Perhaps in another life I'll be from Tokyo or Paris, and I'll do this project there.
"literally begging to get turned into a local community corkboard": No, no it isn't. And for one thing, "fundraising bakesales and church picnics and general meetings" don't even always get mentioned in our local newspaper, so they could even be cited. And considering 50% of the citations are from out-of-town publications...
As per the Water Festival, I've deleted it, but it has 50,000 attendance every year, I would assume more people than attend the European Juggling Convention.

With regards to Years in Brampton, that's call "Oops, guess my internet connect flicker without me noticing." I copy-pasted Years in Canada, did a find-replace, and didn't edit further. (While Brampton was founded in 1834 as a village, microfilm of the local newspapers only go back to Confederation, so not much reason to go further back.)

Ask yourself: if this was 2011 in Atlanta, 2011 in Miami, 2011 in Pittsburgh or 2011 in Halifax, would we even be having this AfD? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I sure hope we would. PK T(alk) 01:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the contents of the list are either redundant (election results), or have little-to-no historical significance. (eg, "March 30 - NDP leader Jack Layton makes a campaign stop in Brampton" Whoo-hoo!) I agree with Bearcat's description of why this ought not to be in Wikipedia. There aren't articles for 2011 in Atlanta, or 2011 in Ontario. 2011 in Canada has been started, and its contents are much more notable than what's listed for Brampton. PK T(alk) 01:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added the newly-created 1981 in Brampton, if you don't mind. ... discospinster _talk 01:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. There's a reason that 2011 in Atlanta, etc., haven't been started, and it's nothing to do with effort. Any important events will be mentioned in the city's article, and will likely be chronological. There's no need to list things like store closings and campaign visits. (P.S.: Hamilton is in no way a suburb of Toronto.) ... discospinster _talk 01:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, campaigning in Brampton not consider relevant? Brampton's ridings were considered crucial swing ridings by the Conservatives, in helping them get a majority government, the first Canada's had since 2003. The amount of campaigning in Brampton by party leaders was unprecedented. http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iMObwGS9yl278wKopt93v7n66y9g?docId=6709441

No, campaign stops by the various leaders are not ~~relevant~~ notable. They visit all over the place during an election - that's why it's called a "campaign". PK T(alk) 12:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the store closings, if you'd look at the referenced article, Shop-Rite Catalogue Stores was a chain of stores that grew from 4 stores to 64 in just five years. Whilst not massive, it was a significant enough blow for the economy.

As for Hamilton's suburb status, Wikipedia defines suburbs within Canada as "separate residential communities within commuting distance of a city". If the Ontario government has a commuter line to Toronto, from Hamilton... I'm not saying it's dependent on Toronto, but neither is Brampton. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not saying that it's not relevant, just that it does not need to be in a separate article. The information would fit fine in the Brampton article. And as for the definition of "suburb" -- that could very well mean that Toronto is a suburb of Hamilton. :-) ... discospinster _talk 02:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, by Wikipedia's definition, Toronto could qualify as a suburb. To the other point, see below. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What defines a suburb is not merely commuting distance alone -- it's a complex interplay of factors, including what percentage of the city's population commutes to the larger city to work instead of working locally (Brampton has a much higher percentage of commuters-to-Toronto than Hamilton does), whether the smaller city has its own separate media or is part of the larger city's media market (Hamilton has its own daily newspaper, its own TV station and several of its own radio stations, while Brampton has none of the above; even the few radio stations that are officially licensed to Brampton brand themselves and function as Toronto stations), the degree of economic interlinkage, and on and so forth. But that's really a side argument anyway; the crux of the issue has nothing to do with whether Brampton is a suburb or a metropolitan core city, because there's no city on earth, regardless of its status as a suburb or a major metropolis, that has its own distinct set of "2011 in City" articles on Wikipedia either. Mississauga doesn't. Hamilton doesn't. Toronto doesn't. London doesn't. New York City doesn't. Tokyo doesn't. Why on earth should Brampton be seen as having a special entitlement to this sort of thing? —Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I first created 2011 in Brampton, I was poking around category:Sport in Brampton, and wondered what the heck the Bramalea Satellites were. They've had a page since 2006, but it never exceeded a sentence, and it was an orphan, not even linked to from Sports in Brampton, Ontario. The team receives one brief mention in one of the local history books, but only one (there's been ~4 that should have mentioned it before or since). The one that mentioned it only mentioned some Brampton boys were playing on the team, nothing else.

So I decide to research the team, turns out they were a taxi squad for the Argos, with a dozen former Argos on the team at one point, won the Canadian championships for their level of play a few times, switched to another league for two years, where they won the championship both years, before switching to a third league, where they crashed and burned. The story of this team (which I've yet to flesh out as much as I'd like to) was completely wiped off the face of history.

How is this relevant? In 1967, 1968, 1969, 1973, 1974, they probably would have been among the biggest news-makers in town. In the grand scheme of things, they weren't the pride of our town (the Brampton Excelsiors), and they aren't the new hot team whose players go to the NHL (the Brampton Battalion). Simply, while they were cool then, they were epic enough when history writers distilled things down to the essentials. Will a corrupt cop, a Mayor who misuses City staff, or local ridings being among the most contentious in Canada make a local history book in 2020? But they were all covered in Canada's highest circulation newspaper, the latter two endlessly. If we only look at the big picture, we loose lots of big, notable stories that are important, but just don't fit into a greater narrative. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, for the most part........and the article History of Brampton is there for that purpose. But the creation of the series of "20xx in Brampton" articles, capturing all the minutia that occurred in the city, is not justified. PK T(alk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there have only been two things worth note in May. I am picky. I've skipped a murder-suicide, the Citizen of the Year Award and Business Person of the Year Award, and school board hiring discrimination lawsuit, etc. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All There is 2011 in Canada. No need for this article covering a single community. Kyle1278 04:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - There's a history section in the Brampton article for truly significant events. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All God help us if this kind of article becomes the norm. It's not even a good way to sort the historic information, which should all be in one place, namely, the history section of the main article. (Suppose you are trying to find out when a particular event happened; you would have to go through each individual article. Was it in 2000? No. Was it in 2001? No. Was it in 2002? No.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McGarr[edit]

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

Not notable as clearly does not meet criteria in WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN TreveX^talk 17:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Pburka (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:OUTCOMES, we have almost always deleted articles of "also ran" political candidates. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few newspaper articles about his other political activities, including speaking out against army recruitment in schools and calling for a strike. I think those are a likelier avenue for notability than his schoolteaching or his failed candidacy. But I didn't see any with enough depth of coverage of McGarr himself to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wangtang, Guilin[edit]

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

no reliable source (databases such as GEOnet do not qualify), no Chinese, no pushpin named "Wangtang" in the vicinity of the coordinates given. I do not have any tolerance towards articles like this that don't even give Chinese or a more specific administrative division. Nothing named "Wangtang" on this list for Lingchuan County, or for Yangshuo County, the two likely locations of this purported settlement. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 16:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the following have similar, if not the same issues, and I will amass evidence later, as I have to go to sleep:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GEOnet is a reliable source, and HXL49's intolerance for stubs is not a reason to delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to dismiss all of my evidence so quickly, then there is no point in duking this out with you. I create stubs myself...so by your logic, I display intolerance towards them? Regarding sourcing, see the big mess that could result when only a database that merely lists settlements, which are subject to merging and creation, is sourced, as in this discussion? –HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - HXL49, the administrative divisions list for Lingchuan county that you linked to lists a 旺塘村. Also, doing a search on Google Maps for 广西壮族自治区桂林市灵川县旺塘村 will show it immediately. I will update the article with the new information in a bit.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your wording has never been a problem. I can clearly read the great majority of the place names, but of course it is a hassle as there often are several hundred villages in a county. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have updated the article with some references. I have to say, the GEOnet coordinates were not very accurate, so I doubt it a bit for that reason. Also, we will probably have to disambiguate eventually, because there is another Wangtang village just outside of Nanning, in Guangxi. This is not the same as the "northwest of Guilin" one that HXL49 linked above, which I can't seem to find.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, notice that I am nom-ing four others for deletion. Because of this, you should make your vote more specific. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realize that the other articles were formally a part of this deletion discussion. For now, my vote above only applies to Wangtang, Guilin. I will try to look up the others tomorrow.--Danaman5 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wangtang, Guangdong: it is not a city but a village, and is some 15 miles to the NW from where Geonet places it. Corrected accordingly. -- Vmenkov (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of these purported locations are cities. Hence Carlos can continue to spew forth his nonsense about GEONet's reliability, as GEONet classifies many locations as cities when they are officially designated otherwise. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 16:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to want to personalize this way out of proportion. Remove chip from shoulder, first. Open eyes and ears, second. GeoNet doesn't distinguish between "cities", "towns", and "villages" or however China describes various places. They have "Populated places", which is the convention Wikipedia now has. Decided well after these were created; not every article that has not been updated to the latest nomenclature of Wikipedia's editors is to be deleted as implied in your arguments. Otherwise, you'd be wasting your time nominating for deletion all the US cities having 2000 census data, rather than the recently released 2010 data, including status changes reported by the census. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personalise this? Look who began here with "HXL49's intolerance of stubs". If you call it a city after given the administrative division type or after given the Chinese, then you would be distorting it, but I guess since GEONet does a sloppy job anyway and leaves no information, you are not at fault for writing "is a city".

Poor, if not silly, even stupid, comparisons here. The Census is conducted every 10 years, and of course, in between state and county governments can decide whatever they want in terms of abolishments or mergers of places. Same deal with the PRC. And where the hell did I imply that "every article that has not been updated to the latest nomenclature" is to be deleted? Stop twisting my words. I only said that articles with only a single unreliable source should be obliterated. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wangtang, Hunan - the locations for all 3 villages are more or less correct (within a few miles), as compared to Google Maps. Nothing much important about them, of course (typically, each one would be something like one village out of 20 in a town/township of 10,000-20,000 people), but one of them (the 3rd) actually was a township of its own some years ago, later merged into another township. Looking at the maps, I am guessing these particular villages got into the database behind GEONet because they are located at road junctions (of provincial-, county- or township-level roads), and thus a detailed enough map (1:1,000,000 or more detailed) may want to put a pushpin at such a place. But I am guessing that what we have here (and in Guangdong) is a very "unfair" sample: there easily may be a dozen or more Wangtang villages in each province, and we list one (or 3) out of them due to a rather accidental factor of being included into some (maybe old, and obviously not too precise) map from which the GEONet data were sourced. I would abstain from expressing an opinion on whether we should represent such partial and non-too-precise data, but feel that the labor involved in checking and improving them could certainly be applied be geography-minded editors to something more worthwhile (such as writing decent articles about counties). -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm starting to feel like this is a fool's errand. There are at least four villages called "Wangtangcun" in Guangxi alone, plus a bunch more that are just identified as "Wangtang", so I don't know if they are areas or villages or what. I think that Vmenkov might be right - our time would probably be better spent making articles for counties. Regardless, I can't find any Wangtang that matches the description of "northwest of Guilin", so I'm going to vote Delete on that article.--Danaman5 (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment: I see that besides this sampling of Wangtangs, we have a bunch of other articles that consist of one line, "A is a town/village in the province of B, C km to the N/E/W/S of the city of X", and one data source, namely the infamous GEONet. (Their server has been down for a while, so I don't even know what it is like!). As the above research indicates, most of them, theoretically speaking, could be "redeemed", but with a non-trivial amount of effort for a rather small reward: we still end up with a tiny article about a very small populated place; nothing extra beyond what a reader can get looking at Google Maps or a detailed printed map. Unless a decision is made to actually delete all such "non-redeemed" articles, perhaps we can place a special template (named, say, "Template:GEONet-coords-unverified") into each one, which would expand into a text like this:

This article about a populated place is based on one data source, namely the geographical coordinates servers at GEONet. While this populated place likely does exist and can be found on detailed maps, it is probably quite small, and may in reality be several km, or several tens of km, away from where the coordinates currently in the article indicate. You are welcome to improve the article by adding information from other cartographic and statistical.

One can probably train a bot to insert such a template into each stub article of this type. -- Vmenkov (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? I see references. I see a very marginally valuable contribution to this vast body of knowledge that is Wikipedia. I see not a need to meddle. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you see references. Not so reliable references, though. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then put the disclaimer language suggested by DOE. That'll work, will it not? The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotraining[edit]

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

this article is a disguised advertisement, created by an editor, Amybrann (talk · contribs), who appears to have a strong COI, since Amy Brann is cited in the first sentence as the inventor of the concept. A survey of the literature indicates that the term "neurotraining" has in fact been used, but not in a way that relates to the content of this article -- it has been used exclusively in the context of rehabilitation for brain injury. None of the cited sources properly supports the content of this article, as far as I can see. It is possible that a legitimate article could be created about the application of neuroscience research to personnel training, but it is doubtful that any of the content of the current article would be useful for that purpose. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an ad. This article is the author's only contribution to WP incidentally. Asnac (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous advertising: Neurotraining provides a base through which people can become more efficient, effective and productive in various areas of their professional life. It is based on learning to work both optimally with oneself and with others. Neurotraining provides ROI based on the premise that an effective team is always worth more than the sum of its parts. The article goes on in this vein while never really getting to the point where it explains what "neurotraining" is, or how it differs non-trivially from other methods. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. -- 202.124.73.58 (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Hiravijaya. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hir Vijay Suri[edit]

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

So poorly-written with no inline sources that it would have to be re-written anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ A Google Books search shows that this is a notable person in the history of the Jainist religious tradition. The presumption is strong that many in-depth sources exist in other languages. This is a stub on a notable topic. The solution to the article's shortcomings is to expand it and reference it, rather than deleting it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect instead to another version of the guru's name, Hiravijaya, where we already have a developed and well-referenced article about this person who influenced Akbar the Great. Cullen328 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cullen--Sodabottle (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above unless someone has evidence that this wouldn't be a likely misspelling or search term. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JAutomate[edit]

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

Not notable. No coverage in any major publication. Not a major open source project. No history. Only a few blog entries and press releases found on the Internet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previously proposed for deletion by me: "Non-notable software, no third-party references". Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fictional characters with ADHD[edit]

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

Non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization, list only contains 3-members. Perhaps might work as a section of ADHD article? Mblumber (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTDIR. It might be appropriate to have a single sentence mention of Bart Simpson's ADHD in Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but there's currently no section on cultural references or the portrayal of ADHD sufferers in fiction. --Anthem of joy (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Del---ooh, shiny thing... Even if this were a larger list consisting of more than two cartoons' worth of characters. Lists of "Fictional characters with..." everything imaginable push it a little too far into cruft. Eauhomme (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Subjective and trivial non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization and the fictional characters are not notable for having ADHD, which makes it fail WP:NOTDIR. Jfgslo (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Million[edit]

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

Career Minor League Baseball player. Million played only for 4 years, and had pretty unremarkable stats. Just because he has an unusual name does not make him notable. Adam Penale (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria in WP:NSPORT. Also fails WP:GNG, where multiple sources are generally expected; the article has only one source. Based on the lone source found, this is a WP:Run-of-the-mill person not notable enough for an article. —Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added a couple more sources. Rlendog (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch. I found another source and added to the article also. —Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find more sources (although hindered by the fact that the odd name brings up many irrelevant sites, and the fact that this player far predates the internet era). He never played in the major leagues but apparently received a decent amount of contemporary coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and did apparently sign with the Cleveland Indians (then the Naps) so as to provide him with an article in the Cleveland Indians Encyclopedia. Rlendog (talk)

Keep Changing my vote above from delete, as WP:GNG is now satisfied with significant, coverage in multiple sources. The multiple sources apparently find his unusual name notable, even if his playing career was not. —Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like he's one of the "GNG exceptions" to NSPORT, it doesn't matter why he's getting covered--it's the reliability and non-triviality of the coverage that counts. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources seem to establish WP:GNG, rendering the deletion argument due to WP:NSPORT completely moot. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Apparently I was wrong in nominating it and new sources reinforce GNG. Plus at this point it is pretty much WP:SNOW. Sadads (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MV Portaferry II[edit]

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

Contested prod of non-notable ferry, that is not a full ocean going vessel and has no significant secondary coverage in sources outside of the ferry service information published by the organization that owns the vessel. Sadads (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SHIPS convention is that all ships over 100 tons / 100 ft long are notable. Portaferry II is 179 DWT. Other sources are available. WPs informed. Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous ship article AfD's for info.
Weak keep. I wouldn't want to rely on a convention that all ships over 100 tons / 100 ft long are intrinsically notable (this must be some new definition of notability of which I was hitherto unaware). However, there does seem to be just enough discussion in independent sources so I think it just barely passes the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the general convention, but GNG and RS also apply. Empire Darby meets the criteria, but I was unable to find enough info to significantly expand on the list entry, so I decided not to create a separate article on the ship rather than create a stub. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lack of sourcing is not the articles fault, and Google points to a solution. Should be easy to supplement the sourcing. Weakopedia (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; article is expanded, has historic aspect. Re: WP:SHIPS convention, Notability of ships over 100 tons: Many ships have similar names, or long gaps in their histories. The ability to definitively identify ships with capacity of 100 tons or more can facilitate documentation of topics that involve the relations existing between different geographic areas, as well as topics that involve the movement of people or goods. Any ship of this size has both a significant economic impact as well as potential for impact on notable events. Djembayz (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have pointed out, conventions and sources are adequate. Benea (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Smith (UK politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. To reiterate rationale for the the first (successful) nomination for deletion: "This person is a totally obscure functionary of a very minor fringe party that has ... a handful of councillors. Subject is clearly not a notable political figure - fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable." TreveX^talk 13:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I'd disagree with the description of the Respect Party as a "very minor fringe party" - it had a MP at one point - Linda Smith simply hasn't received enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. Being chairman of a minor party is not significant unless one also holds other political office or has a notable public profile (like Salma Yaqoob has). --Anthem of joy (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Person fails the notability criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. Zangar (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are sources available, but arguably they're not reliable and indepedent ones: [8],[9],[10]. I don't think this person passes the notability guidelines. Out of interest, why wasn't this a WP:G4 candidate? Robofish (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn nomination without dissent). Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight on the Mavi Marmara[edit]

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

Article was deleted as a PROD, but was restored after the deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. There is no claim to notability for the book; the author is notable, and so are (some of) the contributors, but that does not automatically confer notability on the book. Quite simply, the book does not meet the criteria of WP:NBOOK. The editor who originaly PROD tagged the article looked for sources, and so did I, without finding anything. bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as there are sources I hadn't found, which indicate notability. These have been added to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book has been reviewed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ([11]), Foreign Policy In Focus ([12]), Mother Jones ([13]), The New York Times Magazine (Quoted in Amazon.com listing: [14]), International Socialist Review ([15]), and Press TV ([16]). There is other random coverage too (e.g. [17]). And having co-authors like Noam Chomsky gets pretty close to WP:NBOOK #5. jorgenev 12:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment to that - Chomsky is not a co-author (I agree that his notability is such that it would have been sufficient for NBOOK), but one of over 40 contributors. Thank you for the extra sources! Now I worry about my own powers of information retrieval, that I didn't find those... --bonadea contributions talk 12:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jorgenev, please add the sources to the article at least s a series of external links, Sadads (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Verma[edit]

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

I fail to see the notability here. All the article says is that the subject descends from a political family, but it doesn't say what he actually achieved (not even whether he held a political office). So per WP:ANYBIO, I say delete. bender235 (talk) 08:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-promotion; personality fail to show notability Ramansoz raman 09:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with all above; note that the account which created it is pretty much an SPA. Asnac (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. He has been accused in one high profile case and has received mentions in news reports, but not enough to meet WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 17:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job Services Australia Software Comparison[edit]

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

Unsourced list of software which is said to be used by Job Services Australia. This add no educational value to Wikipedia and clearly fails. I don't think that it should be merged into the Job Services Australia article, since it adds no value or educational use. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Bidgee (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT / WP:OR. Orderinchaos 21:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Lane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeatedly created article despite multiple csd a7s needs a deletion discussion to avoid future recreations. Last creator bypassed the salt by creating article under another name which was eventually moved back to salted name. Pornographic actress fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Little to trivial coverage in reliable sources. No notable award nominations in consecutive years. No unique contributions to the field of pornography. Not features in mainstream media. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and further salt per nom. Should someone be looking into why an admin allowed the article to be recreated with so many BLP concerns? Dismas|^(talk) 08:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – We all make mistakes. ttonyb (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Fails WP:PORNBIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I recreated the article assuming good faith from an established user. No need to release the hounds. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If this article gets deleted I swear to God I am gonna request a deletion of the hundreds of other pornographic non notable actors stubs in Wikipedia. On the other hand, Cody Lane is a well known porn star with over 100 title and one as director in the market. I disagree on the double standard that is taking place here. I have the feeling the article is being discriminated on the basis of it being pornographic in nature. Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably read WP:POINT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How am I disrupting Wikipedia? You are making me sound like I am trolling. My inclusion of this article was made on pure good faith. This is just another classic symptom of WPeism...anything that doesn't fit the liking of an editor is immediately accused of some kind of WP:something just to validate or make invalid a contribution. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If this article gets deleted I swear to God I am gonna request a deletion of the hundreds of other pornographic non notable actors stubs in Wikipedia". I guarantee that if you go do something reactionary like that, you will get blocked or even banned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me something I don't know buddy --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before you make claims like "I have the feeling the article is being discriminated on the basis of it being pornographic in nature", you should check the contribution histories of MorbidThoughts and I. We've put a significant amount of work into the pornography articles here. And there wouldn't be a WikiProject Pornography if there were some sort of bias against pornographic articles. Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Also make sure no traces of the unproven alternate name remain in visible logs etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG with no RS coverage. Also fails WP:PORNBIO. The number of films does not establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no enough in-depth coverage secondary sources to even overturn a BLP PROD, has to go. doomgaze (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson LaVar Edwards[edit]

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

His name is only mentioned in one of the five references provided and a google search for "Cypher Corporation" & "tyson edwards" shows up nothing but wikipedia mirrors. Jevansen (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Co-founder and officer of a non-notable corporation. No significant coverage found. --MelanieN (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diuretic and Anti-inflammatory Pill[edit]

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

Article promotes a patent medicine, makes medical claims, is completely unsourced, probably unsourceable, and fundamentally unencyclopedic. Rivertorch (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, illogical and unsupported by credible sources. JFW | T@lk 08:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam per WP:SPAM and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Just an ad for a specific type of herbal medicine being marketed. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faded horizon[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable band, no reliable independent references, fails WP:BAND, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but would prefer Speedy delete instead of an AfD. --Σ _☭^★ 05:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No reliable independent references.--Dmol (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not speedy though) per WP:BAND. Unsigned band that hasn't charted. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Could probably be speedied due to promotional tone. Dismas|^(talk) 01:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem to have any coverage in reliable sources, nor does it fulfil any of our criteria for musicians and ensembles. doomgaze (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is something fishy about this AfD - it was originally created by mistake in an attempt to get the capitalisation of the article fixed, but I can find no trace of the original. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO reason why this article should be deleted. It has plenty of well known sources and references. Please understand Faded Horizon is a very hardworking band, and is deserving of this page. See the article to see what they have accomplished. Thanks 9gn9ztdd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, being hardworking is not one of wikipedia's criteria for band notability. If there are reliable sources that discuss the band, please supply them. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HOWEVER, FADED HORIZON MEETS THE FOLLOWING: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]" Faded Horizon has been in both Bellmore Life Newspaper and Merrick Life Newspaper. Here is an online version of the article.

http://merricklife.com/issue/february-24-2011/article/bellmore-merricks-faded-horizon-comes-into Sincerely, 9gn9ztdd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are also featured on Cyber-FM Radio as band of the month

http://www.cyber-fm.com/page/Spotlight 9gn9ztdd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L&M Publications (Life Newspapers) is an online community newspaper and hardly qualifies as a "mainstream newspaper" (WP:SOURCES). Cyber-FM appears to have a similar low profile. WWGB (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG. THE ARTICLE I POSTED FROM L&M ALSO APPEARED IN A PHYSICAL NEWSPAPER THAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE AT KING KULLEN SUPERMARKET. FOR EXAMPLE, NEWSDAY ARTICLES APPEAR BOTH ONLINE AND IN PHYSICAL PAPERS. THE ARTICLE FROM L&M ALSO APPEARED IN THE PHYSICAL NEWSPAPERS BELLMORE LIFE AND MERRICK LIE. WHY DON'T YOU BUY A PHYSICAL COPY OF THE PAPER, OR BETTER YET I CAN MAIL IT TO YOU. I'D BE HAPPY TO MAIL YOU A PHYSICAL COPY SO YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF THAT IT'S A PHYSICAL PAPER. ALSO, WHERE DOES IT SAYS THE PAPER HAS TO BE "MAINSTREAM"? YOU'RE PUTTING QUOTES AROUND MAINSTREAM AS IF IT SAYS IT IN THE CRITERIA AS A REQUIREMENT. 9gn9ztdd (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)9gn9ztdd[reply]

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING. doomgaze (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because WWGB didn't do his research and doesn't realize the paper can be physically purchased as well. And it doesn't need to be mainstream. That's not a qualification.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9gn9ztdd (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Craig Author[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable author, no reliable independent references that assert notability, fails all criteria at WP:AUTHOR, declined speedy. WWGB (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)</small[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find much in the way of extensive sources availible via a google search, and I don't see any evidence of non-web sources either. Seems to fail WP:GNG from the outset. --Jayron32 05:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Attempted to encourage newbie, trimmed back to verifiable info, and added citations. Web search shows two PR people by this name. One is based in London, the other is Chevron spokesman for S. America involved in litigation with Greenpeace. May or may not be same person. Considered request for another speedy delete, but I don't know that process. Forthcoming book appears notable; however, info is hidden behind Times paywall. Am leaving cited material here so admin has material for determination. Trilliumz (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was me who uploaded the original article and I can see now, looking at the edited one where my original went wrong. This was the 1st time I had ever tried to upload to Wikipedia and it's pretty daunting. People keep saying there are no sources on Google, that was the whole point. That's why I uploaded the article. I was asked to review the novel for a national newspaper and when I went to look up background information there wasn't any. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.103.75 (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is no background information on Google or elsewhere is precisely why the article is listed here: Craig/Breheny is not notable. Subsequent interest in his book may establish notability in the future. Its mere existence does not. WWGB (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline's[edit]

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

Non-notable retailer lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This business is profiled in the 1986 book "Pelican Guide to Sacramento and the Gold Country." I found articles in the Sacramento Bee in 1989, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2008. I see a 1989 article in the Contra Costa Times. Disclosure: I have shopped at Evangeline's many times over the years. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in local journals is hardly 'significant coverage in secondary sources'. Google hits tend to either point to own websites or to travel websites. This shop would fit neatly into a travel guide like the Pelican Guide you mention, which WP is not, of course. Asnac (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The guides do confirm the existence of this retailer, which is good as far as it goes - but does nothing to establish notability.UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S.P.A.Z.[edit]

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

Non-notable software game lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 01:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try 'space pirates and zombies' for google search instead. IMO, it shows enough (About 386,000 results) -- 91.79.78.211 (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – if you put that term in quotes you only get 51 results - none of which are of substance. ttonyb (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A nice source has literally just popped up on Shack News, but a single source isn't the basis for an article. This looks like something which will get attention from sites like Rock Paper Shotgun and probably PC game magazines too, but it's been put up too early. If it is deleted then no prejudice against reinstatement should more sources appear. Someone another 23:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Someone here. In the future, might become notable enough for inclusion, but based on my look I have not yet found those indicators. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CK1[edit]

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

Delete. Insufficient third-party reliable sources to establish notability, i.e. subject does not meet WP:BIO. Yworo (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, non notable. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon Ekpe[edit]

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

Unreferenced ~~BLP~~ Bio. I found one source in Google News, but it's only a passing mention and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not a WP:BLP. The article states that the subject died in 2010. I've removed it from Category:Living people. The subject was a judge in a national court of appeal. I believe that this constitutes notability, as long as it is verifiable. Pburka (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The position is notable. It will be good to have more material, but since the basic notability is verified, it's enough to start with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal-Bengal[edit]

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

Rationale - Not notable, made up game. No "rigid" rules, not played in a formal setting. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown attempted to nominate this film for deletion. I am completing the nomination; no opinion on my part. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TW borked thanks for fixing. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources to support the existence of this game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created by a single-purpose account providing no sources in article, nor can sources be found online: this cannot be verified and needs to go on those grounds alone.Asnac (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ~~V != N. If there are not two sources then this is insufficiently notable for an article Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)~~ Closing amended after discussion on my talk page. There seems no doubt that there is a single source which meets V but inclusion depends on N and even the keep side acknowledge that there is currently a single source. By policy this is therefore a delete can be recreated/undeleted as soon as a second decent source if found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Sandwell[edit]

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

Delete. Notability is not established for this community radio station in accordance with the topical notability guidelines or general notability guidelines. History of the station (one year old) is not significant or important to support notability. Size of audience or unique nature of the broadcast has neither been determined or presented to assist in establishing notability. Unable to locate significant, reliable, and independent sources. No information in article outside of frequency and organization website. Cind.amuse 03:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a limited number of community radio licenses available in the UK. They are available only to non-profit organizations who satisfactorily demonstrate an ability to serve and represent a distinct community. In my opinion, this gives them a degree of inherent notability from the start. In the case of Radio Sandwell I believe they meet WP:BCAST anyway, because they have a significant potential audience - around a half-million, I estimate (which is larger than that of many commercial broadcasters who we do find notable) and they originate all of their own programming. Background note: At present we appear to have 97 articles about licensed community radio stations in the UK. As far as I can tell, only two of them have been to AfD before (Soundart Radio, NE1fm) and both were closed as keep. Thparkth (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

without prejudice WP:V content critieria requires "sources" and I don't see two independent sources listed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course - but all the same, the government agency responsible for licensing radio stations is a pretty darn reliable source for verifying the existence of a radio station, though obviously not for much more than that. Thparkth (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcella Durand[edit]

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

I hate to do this to a poet--Lord knows American poets have a hard enough job already, teaching composition and all that. Anyway, I cannot find any reliable sources reporting on this poet or her work. I found that she had a poem published in The Nation, but that's it. Please prove me wrong by finding reliable sources--newspaper articles, reviews of her work, etc. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "2009 fellow in Poetry from the New York Foundation for the Arts" isn't nothing Jztinfinity (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If a cultural organisation thinks she's worthy of support she deserves congratulations but it doesn't make her notable. NYFA gives out over 100 such awards each year.Asnac (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okenla[edit]

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

PROD removed without reason given, No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:V Mtking (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ariticle is about the most prominent Ijebu man that ever lived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.57.58 (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interesting guy, but I don't really see how he meets WP:BIO, and there's no way of verifying any of the information in the article. --Anthem of joy (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Horn Cable TV[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:N, and a cursory google search reveals no relevant sources kthxbai Keastes ^know_thyself 09:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utter giblets. No sources, no independent net presence, sink it. Fish ^Barking? 18:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Garrett[edit]

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

Long term unreferenced article about an actor who has only had minor roles, won no awards that I can see and otherwise had a largely unremarked career. Peripitus (Talk) 11:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject doesn't yet appear to have achieved significant public attention, as indicated by the lack of media coverage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that notability guidelines hage been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Streicker[edit]

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

Biography of a person whose principal claim of notability is having been an unsuccessful candidate in an election, thereby failing WP:POLITICIAN. This was previously disputed on the grounds that he's "locally important" (as if that counted for much), but that distinction merely asserted — with the article relying on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and trivial coverage which merely mentions him in passing, rather than reliable sources which are actually about him, the article still fails to actually demonstrate his "local importance" in a manner that would actually meet our notability guidelines. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to establish notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Pburka (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He does fail WP:POLITICIAN, but passes WP:GNG. He would appear to be a thorn in many sides over environmental issues, and gnews shows plenty of traffic with his name. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may certainly be possible that he passes WP:GNG in principle — but he certainly doesn't do it on the basis of this article as it's currently written and "sourced". Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it an edit issue, not an issue of passing or failing the criteria for inclusion. Lots of articles here need work. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good enough to assert that the article meets our inclusion guidelines because you assert the existence of reliable sources which aren't present in the article and haven't been provided by you either. The article itself has to show, and reliably source, that he's sufficiently notable to be on here; any article which doesn't do so properly can be deleted absolutely anytime someone notices the problem. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. As he was not elected, he dos not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Hi notability as an enviromentalist needs to be established with significant coverage in reliable sources, which I cannot find. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contrary to Dennis Brown's results, my Google News Archive search [18] did not find significant coverage of him as an activist - only passing election coverage as a minor-party candidate, and a few quotes as a spokesman for the Green Party on Arctic issues. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Pogona. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bearded dragons as pets[edit]

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

Essentially a "how to" guide on keeping Bearded Dragons as pets. Wikipedia is not a guidebook. There is already an article on the animal itself, separate from this one. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because WP is not a how-to guide. However the article is a nice how-to article. A small amount of info could be added to the main bearded dragon article, as well as to whatever article we have on reptiles (or lizards) as pets. Borock (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This looks like a strong merge candidate for some sort of Reptiles as Pets piece. Carrite (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am loathe to delete this outright. Here is the ENTIRE reference to Reptiles-as-Pets in the main article Reptiles: "Due to reptiles lacking feathers or fur, reptiles are used as pets by people with allergies." Unless some suitable merge target emerges, I would propose that this article be dealt with as a Keep + Retitle + Expand. Carrite (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sometimes it's shocking to find out what we don't have articles on. Still what is needed is an article on lizards as pets, not one specifically on bearded dragons as pets. Borock (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as Borock says, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Some could be merged with Pogona (our Bearded dragon article), and the how-to stuff can be merged with wikibooks:Animal Care/Bearded Dragon. I would also support using some of this to create a "pets" section for Reptile. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful into Pogona. A separate article is unneeded. Deli nk (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, some useful information here but not enough to justify a stand-alone article. doomgaze (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be appropriate for a transwiki to Wikibooks? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]