< 28 May	30 May >

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOK Europe GP 2011 in Lublin[edit]

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

Previously deleted with a PROD as "Non-notable future event; WP:GNG WP:CRYSTAL", this has been recreated by the original author. Same rationale applies for this AfD - no evidence of notability, unreferenced, cannot find references. Chzz ► 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a non-notable pay-per-view event and I wonder if the person creating these articles might have a conflict of interest. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -This is notable event within the scope of Wikiproject:Kickboxing. It needs work but its not non-notable event.thxMarty Rockatansky (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Marty Rockatansky. I would just like to point out that decisions made by a wikiproject cannot override the Wikipedia core policy of verifiability or the notability guidelines. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is 1) a notable event as K-1 are (still just about) the biggest kickboxing organziation on the planet and 2) the event hasn't even happened yet - could you not wait till references have been added before nominating something for deletion. jsmith006 (talk) 11:41 30 May 2011
Delete - There aren't any reliable third party sources about this event, and as WP:N says (in the second sentence), an article without those doesn't belong on WP. The athhletes themselves do not appear notable, and it is currently unsourced. Nolelover^{It's almost football season!} 14:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per criteria 1 of WP:FUTURE. Event is not notable at this point in time. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is always the possibility that the event may become notable after it is actually held, we can't know until then. The creator can always get a userfied version of the article and then move it back to mainspace after the event, but only if there are multiple, reliable, independent sources testifying to the event's notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of the biggest kickboxing events of the year (very notable). It just needs a knowledable editor to add the proper references.(Justinsane15 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete insufficient notability has only one of the participants has a Wikipedia article--a rough guide, but useful when its a matter of judgment. Competitions of any sort between non-notable people do not usually get substantial independent references before the event, just promotion, so I think the presumption is that they can not be found, and whatever is found what be promotional, not independent. Qwyrxianm, what have you in fact found? DGG ( talk ) 14:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there's no question the K-1 organization is notable, that doesn't make all of their events notable. This event hasn't happened, seems to lack notable scheduled fighters, and has no independent and reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Drum of Death[edit]

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

Unremarkable band, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google search demonstrates that they do not lack significant coverage in 3rd party sources: Pitchfork Media, Allmusic, Allmusic, Fault magazine, AV Club, plus coverage from tinymixtapes, Prefix, Blare, Exclaim!, austinist, CHARTattack, New York Times.--Michig (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig, looks like they meet WP:BAND. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Neutrality^talk 06:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ma7adamirte7ism[edit]

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

Non-notable philosophy. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources listed appear to be a facebook page, created by the same creator of the page/philosophy. Looks like an inside joke. Quoting the creator : " A By-Product of Boredom and insomnia " DarkMZ (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think a G3 as a 'blatant hoax' would be fine here. Kevin (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete—a blatant hoax. Meph^talk 04:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 and then G7. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choice Music Hook-Up[edit]

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

Notability not established, but most importantly this article should be named Adam Madoun, not "Choice Music Hook-Up" 78.26 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 06:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Antarctica helicopter crash[edit]

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

Non-notable perma-stub. Helicopters crash all the time and, while it's tragic that those aboard were killed, it's undeniably a risky method of transport, so things like this will happen from time to time. Some of them, like this one, may attract short-lived media attention, but not everything the papers see fit to write about is suitable for an ecnyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a news report, per WP:NOTNEWS.--Ben Ben (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (create) to a List of aviation accidents and incidents in the Antarctic. As there haven't been many in Antarctica, they are notable in relation to Antarctica, though not aviation in general. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. "Helicopters crash all the time" is a falsehood. 10:36:57 here in the UK - helicopter crashes today = zero. 10:37:11 here in the UK - helicopter crashes today = zero. 10:37:24 here in the UK - helicopter crashes today = zero. You get the picture. As good an arguement as "People are born all the time - lets delete all the bios!" No. Lugnuts (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- People are born all the time and the majority of them aren't notable. That's why we have CSD A7. Similarly, the majority of helicopter crashes aren't notable, and there's nothing exceptional about this one. The GNG gives a subject a presumption of notability, but not a guarantee and specifically states that a subject might meet GNG but not be notable, such as if it fails WP:NOT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the victims appear to have been notable (or at least are not yet identified as such in the article), which seems relevant to whether this will have lasting coverage and impact. Also, the helicopter was ferrying between the French icebreaker Astrolabe and the Dumont d'Urville Station, both of which can cover this crash because it's relevant to both. List of aviation accidents and incidents in the Antarctic seems like a good idea too. postdlf (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I can't see any need to merge. Considering the small amount of aviation activity in Antarctica, crashes are relatively frequent, and there is nothing stand-out about this particular one. It doesn't pass the GNG, and NOTNEWS could have been tailor-made for this. YSSYguy (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per sourcing improvements, the rough consensus about them, and the potential for further sourcing work. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Stouffer[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. There are two citations currently on the article. The first is to a user generated genealogy site (genealogy.com) which is not a reliable source. The second is to a town's webpage and a brief reference, not enough to establish notability. I have been able to turn up several more hits on other user generated content genealogy sites, which do not appear to be reliable sources. Barring any significant reliable source coverage, it appears the subject is not notable. I am happy to withdraw the nomination should reliable source coverage be introduced by someone with better luck turning it up. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are numerous mentions in Google Books, although there appear to have been several people of the same name. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, I turned those up as well. There are dozens that mention an Abraham Stouffer who made a comment in 1782. But according to the current article he was born in 1781, so that likely is not the same person. The only other mentions I have found all appear to come from the same source and have a single paragraph saying he came to the town with the Reesors. That is about it - which doesn't really seem like enough. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article is now well sourced for notability. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the historical materials on Stouffer are slim, he is the founder of Stouffville and as such worthy of a brief entry. I've added links to three local historical books, added a picture of his grave and a link to a provincial historical marker. Links to popular genealogy sites are not appropriate. The article still needs work, but my vote is to keep it. Neufast (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as founder of Stouffville. There's likely more material covering this person in offline sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lo (film)[edit]

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

~~No indication of how this might meet WP:NFILM. There are some reviews of the film but their reliability is questionable. Bringing to AFD for discussion~~ improved to the point where it meets WP:NFILM, withdrawing. RadioFan (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Distributed by Columbia Pictures? Really? Can we get proof on that? DS (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps for DVD release? Moot question however, as I have removed it from the article for the time being until such can be verified. And as of the posting of this comment, the stub is beginning to shape up. I'll report back after doing more work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved. through a little work, the 117 word unsourced stub that was nominated has become a 922 word well-sourced start class film article. Topic meets WP:NF. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by another admin as a hoax. ... discospinster _talk 14:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Will Arnett Show[edit]

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

I could not find any credible sources that a show of this name exists, which is unusual in light of the prominence of the individuals and network involved. None of the articles of the supposed hosters of the show mention it either.

Gentlemen, I suspect a hoax. Skomorokh 19:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. Tagged for speedy deletion. ... discospinster _talk 20:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Agreed. For the last two seasons Fox has programmed a black hole of reruns on Saturday late night and plans the same for next season, and this reads as complete WP:BOLLOCKS with an unneeded "Daniel Tosh is untalented" attack. Nate • (chatter) 22:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day. Neutrality^talk 23:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Divaball (drinking game)[edit]

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

No indication that this drinking game has received significant coverage in secondary sources; see WP:MADEUP and WP:GNG. PROD was contested. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere close to notability, and no coverage in reliable sources. Chester Markel (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I guess the admin are taking a well earned nap. Lugnuts (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of male American movie actors[edit]

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

Delete - If fully implemented this would be a massive sprawling list in constant need of maintenance. This is an instance for which a category is better suited. I had originally PRODed this without realizing that it had been PRODed and disputed already, so now bringing it to AFD. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first (disputed) PROD had been from me: This should be a category, not a list.--Ben Ben (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this cross-categorisation is better served by a category. List would be too large to be navigationally useful. --Anthem 18:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - The subject matter is just too unwieldy to make a useful or navigable list. I note this user's edit history of making several of these sorts of poorly-thought out lists, negiligble talk page discussion and removal of prod tags with no comment at all. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Once there is enough verifiable information at Seth_MacFarlane#The_Flintstones it can be split to The Flintstones (2013 TV series) or the appropriate title. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Flintstones (Fox Television series)[edit]

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

Not enough info to sustain this for 2 years. Can easily be merged to Seth_MacFarlane#The_Flintstones til a lot more info is available CTJF83 16:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

then merge it already- there's no need to bring it to AFD if non-deletion measures are more appropriate. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only inevitable before a redirect is reverted and then for consensus purposes it comes here anyway. CTJF83 17:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that we would know, because you never actually TRIED. Per WP:BEFORE- "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case – or proposing it be merged (see ((merge to)) and ((merge from)). Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD." Umbralcorax (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - information about this upcoming project is already at the MacFarlane article and this is mis-named (TV series are disambiguated by year, not network). Harley Hudson (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect As the article creator, I admit I goofed. I posted the article thinking the series was premiering in 2011 rather than 2013. And I ****ed the title up as well anyhow. Safiel (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there needs to be a franchise article for the Flintstones entertainment franchise. If someone could create such an article (probably by splitting the original TV show article) then this could be merged there. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and creator. This is an easy one. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Steve Hooper[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no evidence the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other SNG. The name is common, and there seem to be several more notable persons with the same name. No relevant, nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits turned up. Article has been essentially unsourced for years. Claimed award, if it exists, is not significant, itself having no GNews or GBooks hits and, it looks like, no GHits except to pages mirroring Wikipedia or IMDB. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally unsourced... --Cavarrone (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Da Inphamus Amadeuz[edit]

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

BLP article about a disk jockey and rapper that lacks reliable sources and fails notability WP:MUSICBIO. Most sources are self published sources WP:SELFPUBLISH, own web site and sites like datpiff.com, rhapsody.com, ilike.com (partnership with Myspace Music). Claims he was featured with notable musicans are sourced with a you tube video that looks like a fraud. The creator of this articel has a serious COI. Ben Ben (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -The fact that it lacks reliable third-party sources is a fatal flaw. Looked on google news and did not find any sources. illogical pie^{(eat me)} 20:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not turning up reliable source coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity page with mostly unserious unencyclopedic content. No RS to be found, and fails WP:BAND. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, per RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snog (band)[edit]

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

Incredibly old article (at least 2003), so I have mixed feelings here. The fact is that the article does nothing to establish the notability of the band. A metric ton of releases on non-notable labels, but no references to show notability, and nothing in the text to imply notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from multiple releases on Metropolis Snog has recieved coverage in

Brady, Nicole (21 January 1994), "Reluctant Hero Thrussell Gets It Off His Chest", The Age

Stewart, Paul (9 November 1997), "PASSIONATE SNOGGER", Sunday Herald Sun

Moffatt, Alistair (21 November 1997), "Cds", The West Australian

Merriman, John (30 March 2003), "Song lyrics slam SA", Sunday Mail

"Sealing it with a kiss", Hobart Mercury, 8 October 2009

Band has two notable members Pieter Bourke and David Thrussell (nominated for Best Original Soundtrack / Cast / Show Recording ARIA award)

David Thrussell also should be created. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Add allmusic to the coverage, where three albums are reviewed. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' band satisfies WP:Music and all it needs is suitable references to justify - agree that Thrussell should have own article. Dan arndt (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree it meets WP:Music #5 & #6 as mentioned above. I've started adding some inline references for it. Kathodonnell (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has sufficient RS to assert notability, but needs a clean up and some EL removing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps -- sufficient RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why a band thats been around for as long as they have would be deleted. not only can their goods be purchased at retail stores, radio stations recieved copies of their albums in the late nineties and itunes still has multiple albums of theirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.121.97 (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Scavone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG even if he passed it in 2005 [1]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Clearly, his work is better known than he is. I was able to find 3 sources, which I've added to the article, but they're weak. The story of his winning a Fulbright was clearly local news and the mention of his concert appearance is just that, a mention. The story of his travel through Europe with his friend is better, but the independence is unclear. (See below.) ~~I'm interested to hear more discussion; I could go either way.~~ He also appears to satisfy criteria "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" or "a highly prestigious academic award" WP:ACADEMIC and "a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work" WP:CREATIVE based on his Fulbright and his Synthesis Toolkit. Msnicki (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - limited but sufficient coverage in multiple third party sources. --Anthem 18:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable sources, and notability is not temporary. Chester Markel (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should email the guy at gary@music.mcgill.ca and asks in what computer magazines or newspapers he has been interviewed in. Surely some mention him. I'd do it myself, but my email isn't working at the moment. Dream Focus 20:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The report in the Telegraph is not exactly independent, because the article is written by Dan Gordon, and Scavone played with Gordon in that European tour. Since no other newspapers seem to have reported this, the notability of the event appears questionable. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your concern re: the Gordon article. He's Scavone's friend so he's not disinterested in having both of them portrayed in a positive light. If he were writing about Scavone's musical talents on his latest album of recordings, I'd reject it as a primary source. The bar has to be a little higher when there's a commercial interest involved. But this is a pure WP:BIO, not WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:BIO rejects, as it should, any autobiographies as useful in establishing notability (and that presumably includes anything the subject has a hand in causing to be published) but doesn't appear to require that acceptable biographies be written by people who aren't friends or didn't participate in the same activities with the subject. Msnicki (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with an h index of 12 from GS plus GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian L. Tan[edit]

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

Lack of WP:NOTABILITY, possibly a student promoting his own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oradyn (talk • contribs)

Comment: You forgot to put the deletion tag on the article. WP:AFDHOWTO and to notifiy the author. And you should tag Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian L Tan (without a dot .) with a ((db-author)). --Ben Ben (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Thanks for letting me know! First timer Oradyn (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:FILMMAKER. One of the sources given (ucla.fps-productions.com) states: The Film and Photography Society at UCLA is a student organization ...--Ben Ben (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faculdade de Engenharia Química da Universidade Estadual de Campinas[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. faculties of universities do not normally get their own article unless they meet WP:ORG. there is not anything even useful here to merge into the main university article. not to mention that the article name should be in English as per naming convention. LibStar (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article essentially says that the faculty of engineering at the State University of Campinas is a faculty of the university. The article has no useful information to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Jun Wang[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, fluff piece to support pushing a fringe view at Extinction (astronomy). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find sufficient in-depth reliable sources for WP:GNG or sufficient evidence of impact on the field for WP:PROF. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same reasons as above. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His papers don't have the citations to pass WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see any evidence of the other criteria either. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London)[edit]

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

Aside from being entirely unreferenced, this article doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline because this 'silver medal' doesn't seem to have been covered "directly and in detail" by multiple reliable sources. A Google Books search, for instance, throws up a lot of primary sources, and a few throwaway references to people having received the medal, but there is no concerted discussion of the medal itself as a subject that I can find. The PROD-tag was removed with the edit-summary, "Don't be absurd" ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 12:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, This is an absurd nomination. It is a perfectly good award. It has been awarded to plenty of notable people. Flying Fische (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As documented by the sea of redlinks among the recipients. But in any case notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd restructure so that each medal was discussed briefly on the parent page, and then there is a list of "X award" winners. Looking at the award, the people win it for pretty outstanding research they'd otherwise be notable for anyway, and the parent society is highly notable, so I reckon restructuring as a list is ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time finding independent sources. Lots of notable people list this award on their vita, so it is clearly important. But independent coverage of the award is shaky. [2] provides very little information but some historical sense. [3] also provides just a small bit (trivial coverage IMO). Other than things from the ZSL and on people's vitas I can't find anything else. Given that this is a long standing award (100s of years) and that important people seem to think it's important, and that we have primary sources that are pretty solid from ZSL ([4]), I'd prefer either a merge or IAR keep. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that the list in the article and the list of the actual Silver award winners ([5]) have no correlation. Perhaps those listed in the article won some different award? I agree with part of Casliber's suggestion of just listing the names of the awards offered on the parent page, and list the winners if they have received coverage in reliable sources which can verify the notability of winning the award. Otherwise perhaps just listing the award names without the names of the recipients would be most appropriate. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tracked down who the names on the current article are. Apparently they are on this list [6] which is for an entirely different award. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch -- so FF's original article contained the description of the Frink Medal and the recipients list of the Scientific Medal -- and nothing whatsoever to do with the medal that is the actual topic of this article? That's bizarre, even by Wikipedia's (often crazy) standards. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the deficiencies discovered by the other editors here. Qworty (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: malformed creation and little-to-no third party coverage. What is there could be easily included in Zoological Society of London, until such time as sufficient material has been amassed to create a substantive independent article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasiya Romanova[edit]

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

This unsourced article is predominantly original research. Due to the common names used and the variability of English spelling of Russian names, I could not make out whether this article duplicates an existing one, or confidently research whether it documents a notable topic with coverage in reliable sources. I am happy to withdraw this nomination if an impartial editor can credibly achieve this. Skomorokh 12:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be fiction or a hoax. The subject is claimed to be a princess of Russia, yet her father (from whom she presumably would have inherited her royal status) is never even identified by name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Royalty cruft at best, a hoax at worst. Anastasiia Romanova, the daughter of Nikolai and Alexandra Romanov who was killed with the rest of her family during the Russian Civil War is notable, this individual is not. Carrite (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turn It Up (Robots in Disguise song)[edit]

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

no notability for this song, lacks charting, awards, covers, coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:NSONGS. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find significant coverage for this song in reliable sources; just passing mentions such as within album reviews ([7][8]), concert reviews ([9]), and Tegan of Tegan and Sara listed it among her top 5 songs of 2007. I'm not seeing enough to satisfy WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as it fails notability per WP:NSONGS. It claims that the song references a long list of other songs, which can be merge into the album page if it passes WP:VERIFY.--Michaela den (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Abdultaofik[edit]

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

In the absence of evidence suggesting that Latvian league is fully professional, I think we have to assume it is not. Hence he would fail WP:ATHLETE. Oleola (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Latvian league is indeed not fully-professional, meaning that this player fails WP:NFOOTBALL; he also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he fails WP:GNG, and he has not appeared in a fully pro league meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Schole[edit]

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

Very regional interest and single event. Notability not established. Merger has been proposed. WP:NEWSBRIEF, WP:1E Rainbowwrasse (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There is insufficient information from reliable sources to build an encyclopaedic biography – most of the press articles look like a rehash of material from a press release by the awardgiver. As far as the world is concerned, this is yet another teenager who won a science prize. and it remains to be seen whether the discovery is significant. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of WP:BLP1E. I don't think this story is notable enough for an article - possibly 2010 Canada Wide Science Fair might be, but I doubt it. I don't think there's any grounds for a merge here either, since he's just one of many past winners and there's no reason to highlight him in particular. Robofish (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kudos to Kyle Schole for his dedication to science, and reaping rewards from that hard work. However, this is a WP:BLP1E situation. No prejudice to recreation if he goes on to greater things in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article is not well developed, there are elements of some notability that could be added, including information from a segment on Kyle Schole from the nationally-aired Discovery Channel show "Daily Planet", or some of his other national-media coverage. I would suggest keeping this article for a few months to see if it improves or has significant additions. --GGG65 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While Kyle Schole's win at the Science Fair has received some nation-wide media attention, this was based on that single event and did not spawn any subsequent events of note, e.g controversies, comments, etc. I therefore would consider this a case of WP:NEWSBRIEF. The Daily Planet segment was pretty much a reprocessing of this material. If Kyle Schole's notability significantly increases in the future, he can always get a new article, but for the moment that's WP:CRYSTAL. -- Rainbowwrasse (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Ghost Train[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no real claim to notability, albums not on important label, touring lacks coverage, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I did a quick search - it's possible they meet wp:music #4 & #7 but I need to search more. they seem to have had some street press coverage in brisbane & sydney & one article mentions they had coverage overseas whilst on tour so will try find some of these & see if they are reliable sources. it does seem a niche music style, so might be #7 if we can find more notable info about psycobilly - perhaps a 4th wave? will vote later after more research (would hate to vote to delete it just because I'm not familiar with this genre & not searching in the right places) Kathodonnell (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - ok, voting keep. I think it meets WP:MUSIC #5 important indie label - the two albums were released on German label Fiend Force Records (which has a WP on german WP - not sure how to link to that internally). I translated the german page and the label sounds notable as an indie label. also the second label was released on Resist Records in Aus - they have a WP page too (though it is very sparse). the EP was also on a German label which seems notable. I've added some references & details to the article. they have been featured in some horrorpunk magazines/video-mags, and street press, and there was some info about the Australian, European and USA tours- not sure if it's enough to meet WP:MUSIC #4 also. the article still needs some work, but I think it's been improved a little. Kathodonnell (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Kathodonnell: notablility is now established and verified by RS.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Mage[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Book that does not meet the notability criteria for books, self-published, by an author who is as yet not notable. When the book becomes notable, it can have a (neutrally written) article; not before. bonadea contributions talk 10:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all the criteria of WP:NBOOKS and no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Anthem 11:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any notable reference Sonu Thareja (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as speedy. Neutrality^talk 06:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paladin The Heroic Knight[edit]

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

If this is a HBO production, I am a concerned subscriber. Could not verify this was an actual film project or a hoax, but either way it is not likely worthy of an article. Skomorokh 10:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3 as probable hoax - extras performing under 'aliases' rings alarm bells, as does the lead actor being a baseball player... As Skomorokh says, it's not notable anyway. I can't find anything online that provides real evidence that this has anything to do with HBO. Created by an SPA, no surprise there. Asnac (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete appears to be a hoax. Not finding anything under the title and film company. No IMDB entry. RadioFan (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 It's a demo video for Adobe CS5 going by the YouTube link, along with a poorly created backstory by the article editor. Actual "film" isn't a hoax, but it isn't a movie at all, and the background isn't real. Nate • (chatter) 22:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no need to emrge - unsourced and already covered. Unlikely search term Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demosthenes (fictional character)[edit]

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

Article which covers two fictional characters which fail WP:GNG, as well as a totally unrelated literary society. None of the material is cited to independent reliable sources, and the article has no clear subject. Anthem 10:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Anthem. Non-notable fiction. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agree that article has no real subject. Merge the literary characters into the book/character page and delete the rest--Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 03:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - This is essentially a Demosthenes in popular culture article with a single primary source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is really no need to delete this article, maybe it could do with a little changing, but not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.169.163 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the information contained in this article is already contained in the articles it links to, including Ender's Game, Demosthenes, and Fire From Heaven. There's no reason to keep this article, and since it constitutes an unnecessary WP:FORK of content, has no clear subject, and is improperly sourced, there's plenty of reason to delete it. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge it into Demosthenes. Dionysodorus (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as ((db-g12)) (deleted by User:NawlinWiki). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannath Mandir, Delhi[edit]

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

WP:NOTTRAVEL. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 09:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article as a copyright violation. It is completely copypasted from http://shrijagannathrohini.com. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the third attempt by the editor to include this article. 1) they tried to 'hijack' Jagannath Temple, Delhi,(which I reverted)then after being warmed ((welcomecopyright)) 2) created Jagannath Temple, Rohini, New Delhi, and when that was deleted, (G11?) "advertising or promotional material.") they 3) created Jagannath Mandir, Delhi, which is now tagged as a copyvio (CSD G12) - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 'recreation of page', and per G11 'advertising' as the article ends with a request for donations. Asnac (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kannabiran[edit]

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

Principal photography of the film hasn't commenced. Indiaglitz isn't a reliable source. Thalapathi (Ping Back) 09:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:nff. Asnac (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why indiaglitz is not a reliable source? Secret of success (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet any citeria mentioned under WP:NFF. Websites like "Indiaglitz" and "Behindwoods" aren't reliable. To understand what are reliable sources, I suggest you to go through this. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 14:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this film is no where near "confirmed" - it's just an idea at the moment. As with all other movies, ideas can be shelved or dropped due to various reasons until filming has begun. On a side note, IndiaGlitz and Behindwoods are reliable, they are not fan sites, spam sites, or blogs. They report the regular news in cinema, like Sify Movies, Rediff, MSN Movies, etc. as effective secondary sources. The problem here is that Secret of Success has misinterpreted them, clearly the sources imply that further information is yet to come and filming hasn't yet been scheduled. EelamStyleZ (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per WP:NFF, WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL etc. And yes, as Eelamstylez noted, IndiaGlitz and Behindwoods are very much reliable sources, but it's simply too early for this article!! Johannes003 (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well those two sites maight be reliable only for past events. I personally feel they publish every possible rumoured news often. That's not the case with Sify Movies, Rediff, MSN Movies, etc., --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 04:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stub as simply being too soon. The director has been "planning" this film since at least 2009, and so might merit a mention in his article, but the topic itself currently does not have enough coverage to be enough of an exception to NFF to merit being a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the phrase is notable (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 03:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not even wrong[edit]

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

This is a phrase from a famous joke. The page is trying to manufacture acceptable usage for the phrase based on a blog/book by the same name, and a newspaper article. This phrase is not widely used and is without consistent definition. If this isn't about promotion, then it is about artificially adding a new phrase to the vernacular. Rpf (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase is widely used (as one can see by clicking on the links in that find sources parenthesis at the top of the page); whether it has a consistent definition is irrelevant to whether it should have an entry or not. N p holmes (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable phrase. Laurent (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase is clearly notable. Sources include Scientific American, and The Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celahir Séregon (talk • contribs) 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into absurdity. The phrase is just an arch way of of saying that something is absurd, nonsensical or preposterous. Our policy is to merge words and phrases with a common meaning together rather than treating them separately. Warden (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable phrase. It is not a way of saying that something is absurd. The article has a useful explanation of the meaning. Roger (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced, which proves notability by way of significant coverage. We have whole categories of such phrases, and most such cases are kept at AfD. Ironically, Colonel Warden is "not even wrong", because it can not be proven that "not even wrong" is the same as "absurd". It really means something like "unverifiably bad logic". Bearian (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from the references in the article, I can personally tell you that this phrase is very well known in the physics community, in which Wolfgang Pauli is extremely famous. As indicated in the article, it has a serioue meaning beyond simply "absurd" or "preposterous" in that it strikes to the heart of the scientific method -- a theory must be testable in order to be science. If it can't be tested it's "not even wrong" -- or "it does not rise to the level of being incorrect" as I have heard it restated. rtcutler 1 June 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtcutler (talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources presented are sufficiently on-topic, in-depth, and reliable to the purpose. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant - Skysmith (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nenna Yvonne[edit]

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

this article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:RS - the references in the article are all from unreliable sources (youtube, myspace, official website,hulu etc.) Amsaim (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the article content I expected this to be an easy 'keep' but far from it. The claims of notability are either minor or, when significant, unverifiable. In particular, the assertion that a song has appeared on the Billboard Chart does not stand up to examination ([10]), nor does the assertion that she has been featured in the Billboard Magazine ([11], [12]). The article seems to be about a non-notable subject and fails WP:V. If it is deleted, User:Victorianny should probably go too. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received some incorrect information from the artist's page, which has been replicated by third parties, particularly regarding Billboard. That has been deleted, and attempts have been made to incorporate verifiable third party citations. Awards, nominations, national radio play (since deleted, but verifiable), collaborations with well-known artists/DJs and song placement on national TV shows should establish notability. Am continuing to make adjustments and additions.Victorianny (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Her releases to date is on self-released EP according to teh article -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are not reliable, or are listings or blogs. Coverage is not 'in-depth'. Being nominated for an award is not the same as receiving an award. fails at WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leafing[edit]

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

Utterly lacks notability, source listed at the bottom doesn't source anything but instead acts as self-promotion. 2ndMillennium (talk) 04:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources have been provided for this game. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above - TBloemink (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game which fails to meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is the harm in keeping this game? I have found at least one source and added it to the article. This is at least as notable as Humans vs. Zombies.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes Obel concerts[edit]

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

PROD and PROD2 tag removed (by an IP). PROD rationale was "Wikipedia is not a directory. We are not a forum to publish a band's touring schedule." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per nominator. This is only a waste of space, merge all possible information to Obel's page. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 08:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A list of tour dates is not appropriate. Content is not of historical or encyclopedic value. Page contravenes WP:ADVERT, WP:CONCERT TOUR and WP:CRYSTAL. Bands, fans, and concert promoters must realise that Wikipedia rules apply to them too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tour dates don't qualify as notable; Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Astronaut (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batumi International University[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Normally I wouldn't request the deletion of an article about a university, because universities are pretty much inherently notable. However, in this case, I can find only the most minimal evidence that this university (located in the Republic of Georgia) exists. Of the five sources cited in this article, two are dead links and the other three don't mention this university. I can't even find evidence that this university has a web site. I do see a very small number of web sites that cause me to believe that this university does exist -- for example, they have an agreement of some sort with the University of Central Florida [13], and its president spoke to a class at another university [14] -- but that's hardly enough to write an article from. And I realize that the best sources are likely to be in Georgian. However, I requested help in finding sources at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Georgia (country) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities, and no responses have been received yet. If this article could be brought up to even a minimal standard of sourcing, I could probably support keeping it. But unless that happens, I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently fails WP:V. I can't find any evidence of existence through google - "ბათუმი საერთაშორისო უნივერსიტეტი" (name seen on seal) gives no results on any search engine. --Anthem 11:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the existence of this entity can't be verified. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celahir Séregon (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or possibly redirect to Shota_Rustaveli_State_University. The photo of Shota Rustaveli State University from its own website, which is also on the Shota Rustaveli Wiki page, appears in the Wiki article about the city of Batumi headed 'Batumi University'. The article nominated for deletion does appear to be claiming itself as a separate entity from Shota Rustaveli State University but there is no evidence for its existence. Is it, in effect, a faculty of Shota Rustaveli State University? Or a figment of someone's imagination? Asnac (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This publication I picked out from google scholar has one of the authors identified as being from Batumi International University. so it seems it does exist and needs somebody more familiar with Georgia to take on some basic expansion and sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That person (Ed Raupp) is the "president" of the university and the original creator of the article here. I don't think it adds any confidence that this place is somehow real. My sense is that the whole thing was an effort that simply hasn't taken off. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- it's not clear that this place actually exists; the article was created by its "president" as part of an effort at building it, but I think it hasn't gone forward in the end. If it does get going in the future, then by all means an article would be appropriate -- but as things stand there can't be an article because there's no sign of an actual university. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actingclassof1977.com (2008 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This made for TV documentary actually has a significant write up in The Australian, and they revisited it a year later. The Sydney Morning Herald also provided coverage. It's borderline for me, but one the keep side of the borderline. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and further expand. In agreement with User:Whpq, this is just over the bar for Wikipedia, and meets WP:NF. Under its AKA title "Acting Class Of 1977" more is available. Beyond coverage in Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian, I also found The Stir, Ozarls First, The Cheers, and Brisbane Times Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. CBD 12:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Higgins[edit]

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

Fictional character whose article composed of a plot-only description of a fictional work without real-world context and who does not meet the general notability guideline as a subject. There are no references independent of the subject from third-party sources and the text appears to be original research mainly. The character is already covered in the article Magnum, P.I., which makes this article a redundant content fork without sources that show the fictional character notability. Jfgslo (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doing a bit of narrowing on the default Google News Archive search above shows plenty of RS that discuss the character. So does Google Scholar, for that matter. Not only is the nomination inaccurate and appears to not have followed WP:BEFORE, the article can be improved to include these independent secondary sources and hence is not a candidate for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment assumes that I didn't bother to do a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. I did and if you actually check the links that you provided, you will note that the articles talk about the actor John Hillerman, not the fictional character Jonathan Higgins, or they talk about parts of the plot of the Magnum P.I. series, nothing that shows significant coverage per the WP:GNG, much less significance or reception for the individual fictional character. This is even worse in Google scholar, where all are trivial mentions and plot-related. Furthermore, these are only Google hits, not specific sources. Do not forget that hits do not prove notability. And do not forget that the article is still plot-only which falls into WP:NOT, more than enough to warrant deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it WP:AGF to apply Hanlon's razor and presume that you'd simply not looked for sources, rather than looking for sources, finding what I found, and misrepresenting your findings as "There are no references independent of the subject from third-party sources". Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have pleanty of citable sources out there. Mathewignash (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES Jfgslo (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a valid arguement, I DID look and I saw MANY sources out there, I'm not just assuming there are some. also it's poor style to just link to an article without explaining it.Mathewignash (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said when saying that seems to be sources. If you do not point them out, your argument most likely will not be taken into account by the closing administrator. Jfgslo (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is a content fork of material rejected during discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so dependence on such material does not reflect relevant policy. Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEANING. Even if it's an essay it is also worth of consideration, particularly because WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS establishes: "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant." For which, by the way, I comment above. Jfgslo (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A content fork of rejected material is still rejected material every time it gets considered; and without regard to how many wikilinks, quotes, and redirections are included in the consideration. I'd suggest that editors learn more about the structure of WP:N and especially the definition of "notable" there. Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who seemed to "reject" the material was you. If you feel the essay is so unacceptable that it shouldn't be linked to from anywhere, feel free to take it to WP:MFD to gauge what the community's view of it is. Otherwise, stop carping about it. Reyk _YO! 22:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not surprising that there are no links to support the claim. Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable third party sources which cover this character in detail. A redirect to an appropriate character listing or the main article can be created later. --Anthem 20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Revert banned editor, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article already has five references, meets WP:GNG. Google search ["Magnum PI" inurl:higgins "Jonathan Higgins" inurl:jonathan] returns 131 web pages with this character listed in the URL. It is reliable that these URLs exist. Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability and the actual five references are unreliable sources or trivial mentions and none provide significance or reception for the fictional character. The first one, magnum-mania, is a fansite; the second one is about the cast of the series and in Hillerman's part says this about Higgins: "In addition to “Magnum P.I.,” Hillerman has played his character Higgins on three other television shows; the third, fourth and fifth ones are about the TV show and Higgins is mentioned only as part of the plot premise, not addressing the fictional character in detail and no significant coverage per the WP:GNG and without reception or significance, nothing to presume anything different from WP:PLOT. I recommend to interested editors to actually check the content of these three books that have no in-line citations and see for yourselves the actual content related to the fictional character. Jfgslo (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I checked the article and the talk page, no one is questioning the reliability or "triviality" of the five sources there. BTW, there are 25 Google books found on the search for ["jonathan higgins" "Magnum PI"]. Nor has anyone even begun to consider what material is available offline that was written before the WWW came into existence. (2) Regarding the argument of WP:OR, it is just that, an argument that no one has raised at the article or on the talk page of the article. The merit of this contention might reduce the existing content in the article, whereas AfD is primarily concerned with notability of the topic as a whole. (3) Sorry, but the hit count for ["Magnum PI" "Jonathan Higgins"] is either 33,600 or 748, depending on how people count them. No one has mentioned the hit count. 131 web pages whose URL includes the topic are not a "hit count", those are universal resource locators with the topic embedded in them. Each such independent web page is verifiably taking "note" or "notice" of the topic; i.e., is evidence that the topic is "worthy of notice"; which is all that is needed in WP:N, that a topic be "worthy of notice". (4) Keep in mind that we are talking about a US TV-show character that appeared for eight years of episodes, this is already a long run. Next, no one had heard of the WWW when this TV show went off of the air. So this character being so widely promoted more than 20 years later evidences a strong WP:NOT "enduring notability". Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is an interesting point, the character still doesn't pass the WP:GNG or WP:PLOT, because that requires tangible evidence, not suppositions about the notability. 1) Even if editors within the talkpage of the article consider the sources reliable, it doesn't mean that they are. Google book hits are the same as regular Google hits. It is when one checks this hits that one notices that all hits are for the TV show, not the fictional character. You can search several non-notable subjects within Google books and you will get hits, but as I said, hits prove nothing regarding notability. If printed material exists then cite it, otherwise it is just speculation which is no basis for WP:V. 2) That the talk page hasn't raised an WP:OR concern, doesn't mean that it is not there. Only two sentences are attributable to a reliable source, the rest is taken by WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, the sections Character and Higgins and Ian Fleming are pure OR. And OR is part of WP:DEL#REASON (original theories and conclusions) 3) And is any of this URLs an actual reliable source that address the fictional character directly in detail with reception or significance? The answer is no. Several of them repeat the content of this article, others are for the episode Professor Jonathan Higgins and the rest are pretty much insignificant, but after checking them carefully, none ever passes as a reliable source or give significant coverage per the GNG, so, contrary to what you commented, they are not proof of notability. 4) You are confusing the facts. The TV show is the one that is widely promoted after more than 20 years, not the fictional character. And several other fictional characters were also created before the www but they do provide evidence of notability, like Betty Boop. The evidence is pretty clear that no reliable source treats the character in detail which can permit treating Higgins in an encyclopedic manner by discussing reception and significance of the fictional character, so the subject of the article is plot-only, which excludes it per WP:NOT, and is not supported by reliable sources either. Jfgslo (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has referred us to WP:DEL#REASON regarding "original theories and conclusions", but I looked it up and this point is for the "Article", thus the policy point in this context would be an assertion that this article topic, "Jonathan Higgins", has been created by WP:OR. Reliable sources say otherwise. Unscintillating (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you that the article had zero references when originally nominated, making all the content OR. It has not been until Metropolitan90's edits that the article has some sources backing up part of the content, but the majority of the content is still speculation that is not backed up by sources. For example, from Character's background only two sentences are referenced, the rest is WP:Synth and OR. In Character again only two sentences and the rest is OR, such a implying that "He always manages to relate it usually to a story in either". This only shows that the majority of the content can't be backed up or that only those few sentences and the lead section may be appropriate for a merge but not the rest of the article. Jfgslo (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Unscintillating. I have added a few inline refs to the page. It may need some improvement but it doesn't need to be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that, while the incline citations have improved a little bit the WP:Synth problems (but not the purely WP:OR ones such as the James Bond claim), the WP:GNG and WP:PLOT still haven't been addressed. Currently there is only one source, Hirschman, which shows something to that effect but it doesn't show reception or significance, merely how the fictional character is represented within the plot and it is a single source. Quoting the actor John Hillerman does not work for notability because, for obvious reasons, he is not independent of the subject and he is not a secondary source. Jfgslo (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the article again, there is no discussion there about WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Content policy such as SYNTH and OR is not an issue at this AfD, since the nominator has already agreed that there are at least two good sentences. Here are a couple of relevant sentences from another policy, WP:DEL#CONTENT, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first..." Regarding WP:PLOT, the nominator may be confusing the name of the shortcut, WP:PLOT, with the actual policy, which reads, "Plot-only description of fictional works."<underlining added> This article was never a "plot-only" description, and WP:NOT references Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries. However, I will note that I don't know what the nominator means by saying that not "discussing reception and significance of the fictional character" means that "the subject of the article is plot-only". Regarding the comment about WP:GNG, first of all, there are now ten references in the article. Second of all, a topic under WP:N must be "worthy of notice" whether or not it meets WP:GNG. (See WP:GNG, "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice..."<underlining added>). It doesn't matter if there are hundreds of sources if the topic is not "worthy of notice". Likewise it does not matter if there are two (or zero) sources if the topic is "worthy of notice". The fact is that there are more than 100 web sites that have "noted" this topic in their URL. This goes right to the definition of notability, "worthy of notice". These 100 verifiable web sites are not "suppositions", they are not "hits", they are not "noticing the TV show instead of the character", they are "tangible" evidence, and their existence is not "speculation". It is the name "Jonathan Higgins" that is "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR still apply because only two sentences of a topic that has not meet the WP:GNG, do not merit an article. The sources have evidenced that the content cannot be improved because all of them show a lack of reception or significance for the fictional character and in none of them Higgins is addressed in detail, at least not in the reliable secondary sources. Jonathan Higgins, the fictional character, as a subject violates what Wikipedia is not because none of the sources has shown that an article about him could be more than a plot-only description of a fictional works and cannot be treated in an encyclopedic manner by discussing the reception and significance of the fictional character because he has no reception or significance in reliable third-party and secondary sources, which is WP:PLOT. Regarding the references, WP:N is clear in that the evidence for notability must come from reliable independent sources and the WP:GNG specifies that the coverage in such sources must be significant. The coverage that the fictional character has demonstrated with the alluded 10 references (of which the majority are for Magnum P.I., not Higgins) is trivial at best or from unreliable sources. "Worthy of notice" for Wikipedia does not come from the number of websites, but from the quality of the actual sources and none of this 100 web site account for a single reliable source with significant coverage of Jonathan Higgins. In fact, the majority of said sources don't even treat Higgins as a subject. The fact that you have to rely on mentioning the number of websites instead of citing the actual reliable secondary sources suggests that there is a lack of multiple sources and that the topic is not suitable for inclusion as a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm disappointed and disturbed, that the nominator has turned to the ad hominem "you have to rely".

WP:N states, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content." By using "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the same sentence with WP:GNG, the previous comment doesn't seem to differentiate between content policy and the notability guidelines. See WP:N#NNC. Also see Category:Wikipedia content policies. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not relevant to this AfD, we have already seen a reference to WP:DEL which would only be relevant to an AfD if the entire topic of "Jonathan Higgins" were WP:OR. Further, there are no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH discussions at the article, and I've already quoted policy that directs editors to raise such issues on the article pages.

Regarding the previous comment's objection to the definition of notability in WP:N, the comment can try to make the case here that the closing admin should ignore the WP:N guideline based on some WP:IAR idea, but whatever happens here isn't going to change WP:N. I'll say it again, the definition of notability takes precedence over WP:GNG.

I find it a contradiction to compare the statements, "you will note that the articles talk about the actor John Hillerman, not the fictional character Jonathan Higgins..." and "none of the sources has shown that an article about him could be more than a plot-only description".

I also find it a continuing contradiction to compare the statement, "the alluded 10 references (of which the majority are for Magnum P.I., not Higgins)", against the statements seeking to dismiss the existence of 100 web pages with the name "Jonathan Higgins" in the URL.

As for the alleged problems with eight of the ten (or is it ten of the ten) sources, I keep wondering why this point is not important enough to raise it at the article and get some other editors involved to either fix the problem or get some agreement that the sources have a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to believe that at any point this will extend beyond a plot summary; this character and series has been extant for many years and as yet, there are few to no WP:RS that have a thorough, in-depth discussion of the character's real-world notability. If I were to remove all of the WP:PRIMARY sourced summary from this article, we wouldn't have anything left, and as our policies state, we build articles with secondary sourcing, not primary. As it is, the arguments to keep this article are based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the idea that if a character's name is mentioned on the internet, that he must somehow meet WP:GNG. I'm afraid it isn't so. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 12:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read JClemens first comment about Google scholar? If so, why did you not refute the sources in your analysis? Where is the "OtherStuffExists" argument? Unscintillating (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no real-world context either. --Crusio (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the previous !voter want to present evidence that this fails WP:GNG? How about the links that JClemens found; for example, Thighs and Whiskers: The Fascination of 'Magnum, pi' Screen (1985) 26(2): 42-59, Oxford University Press, and its coverage of Jonathan Higgins? That seemed to be relevant when it said, "Finally, Magnum's bantering adversary, the overwhelmingly British Jonathan Higgins, veers between obsessive propriety and excessive gallantry, his suave sophistication and urbanity acting as a foil to Magnum's all-American naturalness, ease and spontaneity." According to the Wikipedia article, the journal Screen "is still highly regarded in academic circles." How does anyone explain the bumper stickers and T-shirts for the 2012 US presidential election, "MAGNUM-HIGGINS", or the "Magnum Higgins" jeans that are selling for $185–without noticing the topic Jonathan Higgins? Unscintillating (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Vitalli[edit]

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

A wrestler in an organization for which we do not have an article (Elite Xtreme Wrestling, which is not the same as Elite Xtreme Combat). He didn't make it to the WWE tryouts. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 04:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:ENTERTAINER and does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so doesn't pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Schwartz (driver)[edit]

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

Whilst the claims of a three-time world champion are easily notable, I am unable to find any evidence of this in any source, reliable, independent or not, let alone any significant coverage. If anyone is able to find reliable references, then I'm happy for the article to withdraw my nomination. The-Pope (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Try as I might I can't verify that this person exists. Pburka (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikiality doesn't work for BLPs. Chester Markel (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiroquai concerts[edit]

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

PROD removed without comment or addressing the issues. Concern was: Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. A list of tour dates is not appropriate. Content is not of historical or encyclopedic value. Page contravenes WP:ADVERT and WP:CONCERT TOUR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly put a small sentence in the main article about their tour as that is all that really needs to be mentioned. ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said in my PROD rationale for another one of this editor's articles, we aren't a forum for posting a band's touring schedule. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. When a prod is removed without a satisfactory rationale, that tends to be a red flag that none exits.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kelly Rowland songs[edit]

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

Such lists do not conform to WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC because they replicate a lot of information already contained in discographies. Additionally much of the information contained is WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR and/or pure speculation. Finding songs leaked to youtube, or those mentioned in interview and those registered at ASCAP or Broadcast Music Incorporated to produce what is effectively being called a list of recordings is incorrect as it is simply not encylopedic. Artists record many songs, some for particular project, some as demos for other artists and some because they wrote the song and can choose to do so. As an artist with just two major releases under her built this is certainly unwarranted. A lot of the information from this article is already contained in other articles... and the standards used simply do not meet those required for encyclopedic articles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Any properly referenced material would belong in a discography anyways. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Maldonado[edit]

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

15 year old, unsigned, self-produced musician. Has won an "award", which is essentially recognition by a single other musician in a Youtube video. The sole independent source cited is a review on a blog. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:UPANDCOMING. Only WP:RS is the ultimamusica.com ref. Glad kid is doing well and certainly more "notable" than other kids his age, but not notable by Wikipedia standards.--v/r - T P 03:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article does not appear to be finished. Still in need of an infobox and third-party sources which may exist. --Djc wi (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TP. If reliable sources exist they are hard to find due to the other Eric Maldonado's in the world. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 17:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability per wp standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calhoun Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]

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

The denomination is certainly notable. Some churches and entities certainly are. Mid-level administrative structures, maybe. This particular local church? I don't see any evidence for. A google news archive search brings mentions of deaths of members, a note of their meeting place, none of which satisfy the requirement for significant coverage in secondary sources in WP:NOTABILITY. bW 02:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable individual congregation. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Most individual religious congregations are not notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles, and this article has no independent sources that would lead me to believe this one is the exception. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling Circle[edit]

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

I've checked, and cannot myself find sufficient evidence of notability in the coverage of this band by reliable sources, though there is limited coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 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) 01:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets the wikipedia criteria on at least two points:

1. The band is on an independant record label existing more than a few years - Nasoni Records has existed for 15 years:

http://www.nasoni-records.com/about.html

2. They have also been writen about beyond their own promotional materials:

http://www.theaquarian.com/2010/12/15/traveling-circle-handmade-house/ http://mratavist.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/traveling-circle-comes-around-interview/ http://mratavist.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/traveling-circle-handmade-house/ http://wine-women-song.blogspot.com/2010/10/handmade-house-by-traveling-circle.html http://sonyudum.blogspot.com/2010/10/gunun-parcas-traveling-circle-note-rops.html http://concreteweb.be/reviews/reviews_2010/reviews_29_09_2010/CD/traveling_circle/cdtraveling_circle.html http://www.kreetik.com/1/post/2010/09/interview-with-joshua-schultz-of-traveling-circle.html%20

I believe more articles are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.125.144.131 (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your # 1 above does not appear to be sufficient, as wp's requirement in this context is that the band have released two or more albums (this band only has released one album). Also, the albums have to have been released on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable); but we don't have to determine whether the label here is one of the more important indie labels, as the band has not released the requisite number of albums to be considered notable under this criterion.

2. As to your # 2 above, we need substantial RS coverage, such as multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the band; which of those sources do you feel qualify as reliable sources independent of the band, per wikipedia's criteria? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 26 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, v/r - T P 02:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as speedy. Neutrality^talk 01:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Square (drinking game)[edit]

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

Non-notable drinking game. PROD removed by author. WP:MADEUP applies. ttonyb (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP pretty much sums it up, this is not what Wikipedia is for. RadioFan (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "It originated in Columbus, OH on May 27, 2011.", in other words, made up yesterday. See WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:MADEUP. The fact that the article was created by User:Square team 9 also suggests a COI. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ..... asap. Unencyclopedic nonsense. WWGB (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Invented two days ago. No sources. A classic example of a thing made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 06:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invented two days ago? Not notable - TBloemink (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Churchill Butler[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS support to support the notion that this bio is about a notable person. Epeefleche (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, references are passing mentions of this person only. RadioFan (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Everything's Fine.[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ALBUM and has been in want of references for years. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 22 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, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable album from an unremarkable band. RadioFan (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orville "Rick" Wright[edit]

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

The article does not provide references. With no reliable third-party sources provided, the article should not be in Wikipedia. A search engine test only shows fanpages and unreliable sources with plot-descriptions, nothing that shows reception or significance for the individual fictional character. Because of this, the fictional character is not suitable for inclusion as it is a plot-only description of a fictional work without real-world context and does not meet the general notability guideline. Additionally, with no references, most of the content is original research and with no notability or references, the article becomes a redundant content fork of Magnum, P.I. where the character is already covered. Jfgslo (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magnum, P.I.. No need for AFD. Pburka (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No need for a redirect as the search term is unlikely with the quoted name. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable fictional character, unlikely search term RadioFan (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mute Nights Festival[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news and book searches on the title bring up zero hits. Google web searches on the title bring up primary sources. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG. Contested prod . withdrawn, expanded and sourced to meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Strange that many apparently decent Ukraine sources do not show up in Google News... but in searching under the festival's actual Ukrainian name "НІМІ НОЧІ", we do get enough in-depth reports to be worth investigation against the GNG: Kino Kolo 1 Korydor 048 Today 1 Kino Kolo 2 ukraine3000 Tusovki Afisha Today 2 and more that I have yet to go through. This festival is also the topic of the hours old article Odessa Silent Film Festival. Notable to the Ukraine, and in Ukrainian is notable enough for en.Wikipedia, So... which article to keep and improve through available sources? And which one to delete as a duplicate? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rhetorical. :) The new article should simply be redirected this one as it's the older and better article on the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment new article has been redirected to this one RadioFan (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has now been expanded and sourced. Looks to meet WP:GNG. Notability, even if in Ukraine, is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moviesplanet[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements for WP:WEB. Reads like an advertisement except for criticism section. Only third-party sources are one Israeli periodical (that I can't read). Otherwise, only primary source of website itself. Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be speedy deleteable via A7, no claim of notability RadioFan (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable website. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable - TBloemink (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are plenty of sources to cover notability. Haaretz is one of the biggest and most reliable newspapers in Israel, there's also a mention from The Sydney Morning Herald - both sources in English. Orlydumitrescu (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Sydney Morning Herald article cited in the article doesn't even mention Moviesplanet. The Haaretz article has to do with a legal controversy about the website, not about what the website is supposed to be notable for.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is not true. The Sydney Morning Herald says, and I quote: "Sites such as www.moviesplanet.com even let you search for movie rips according to format, whether it's a Cam or a screener and what quality you want." You should read the article from Haaretz. It explicitly talks about the site itself and how moviesplanet works as a social media for movie lovers, movie database etc. Orlydumitrescu (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the Herald issue, my apologies, I must've screwed up my Find and my read of the article. Still, I don't think that's enough to establish notability; nor does the Haaretz article change my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bitard[edit]

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

This appears to be a poorly translated page from French, much of which seems to focus on student activities around the University of Poitiers. It seems dubious to me that this is notable, though if it were cleaned up and referenced maybe I could be convinced otherwise. Dragons flight (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice in case it is rewritten and recreated. I have a feeling this brotherhood or tradition may be notable - it appears to be very ancient. But it's impossible to tell from the article in its present state. And everything at Google is either a mirror of this article or is written in French. --MelanieN (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Keep Non-English sources and poor wording are ridiculous reasons to delete. Get someone who speaks French, or even take 10 seconds with Google Translate, and use the available sources. (That's directed at everyone, by the way, not just the poor !voter above that I'm picking on) So, yeah. I may strike this comment if it turns out not to be notable after all. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 07:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did post a request for help at Wikiproject France. In the absence of sources we can evaluate, and in the absence of any comprehensible explanation at the article, we can only delete; we can't keep around a nonsensical unsourced article just on the hunch that it might turn out to be notable if only we could prove it. If someone comes up with the evidence I will happily change my !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Since you apparently have no opinion on whether the subject is notable or not, what are you basing your "strong keep" !vote on? --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you will gander at the discussion below, you will see that, as I suspected, it is in fact quite notable. My strong keep may, in retrospect, have been a bit hasty at the time, but I was trying to salvage a deletion discussion that was fading into anglo-centrism. At this point, it seems justified, so I will keep my !vote as is.☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 01:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I google-translated the French Wikipedia page and still have serious doubts about notability. Most of the page is based around a student organization, and most of the references on frwiki are either self-published or have gone dead. Why is this an important student organization? Neither page makes that clear. Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone replied at Wikiproject France to say that the article Bitard on French Wiki was subjected to a deletion discussion in 2008 and the result was "keep". They also said (without giving the reference) that someone had written a masters degree dissertation on it. Unfortunately they did not make any improvements to the article we are discussing here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the article at French Wiki, the thesis they are referring to was probably this: Manuel Ségura, Le Folklore estudiantin poitevin : l'exemple de l'ordre du Bitard (loué soit-t'il !) du début des années 1920 à la fin des années 1980, sous la direction de J-N Luc, mémoire de DEA d'Histoire contemporaine, Poitiers, 1998, 124 pages. It does not appear to be available online. But could it be accepted as adequate sourcing for our article? --MelanieN (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge' with University of Poitiers. Well, yes there is a source, even available on-line (La chasse au Bitard des étudiants poitevins: Panurge bachelier C Escarmant, JL Le Quellec… - Etudes rabelaisiennes, 2006 PDF), but the subject is not very notable in France. The deletion debate on wp:fr in 2008 was keep but nobody took the time to make a decent article. --Anneyh (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good solution and I would support it - provided there is somebody able to make enough sense out of the article to carry out the merge! --MelanieN (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is now at a stage it could get merged... --Anneyh (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Keep' This subject has been worthy of at least two news reports on French television, one from 22 March 1968, another from 30 May 2009. These, in addition to the scholarly articles already mentioned (with additional references in the footnotes), are in my opinion clear indications of the notability of the bitard. As to whether the article should be merged into the one on the University of Poitiers, my understanding of the sources (in particular the mention in the book Bestiaire poitivin -- a bestiary of the region of Poitiers) is that the bitard is a mythical creature of the region of Poitiers, and so, while students at the university currently maintain certain traditions connected to the bitard, it is in no way historically limited to the university. Finally, on the question of the quality of the article, this can always be improved. But deleting the article makes it much less likely that an improved version will emerge, and it will also be unnecessarily discouraging to those who have worked in good faith on early versions of the article. MyPOV (talk) 16:00, 5 June 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.

Sabrina Deep[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niazi Brothers[edit]

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

The A7 prod of this article was removed, without a reflection of why it should not be deleted under A7, other than an assertion that the band is notable (without explanation as to why that is the case). The matter was discussed further at Talk:Niazi Brothers. I cannot find sufficient RS coverage or other indicia of notability myself, but invite others to seek to do so. At this point, though, I don't see sufficient indicia of notability to warrant maintaining this article. Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem is that Niazi Brothers is actually a corporate name for this group of qawwals, which spans several generations. Editors looking to beef up the article should search not just for "Niazi Brothers" but also by the names of the key members, who would include not only the current leader, Javed Taufiq Niazi, but also more importantly the older generation (who are really responsible for the group's reputation): Manzoor Niazi, Abdullah Manzoor Niazi and Makhmoor Niazi. --Sarabseth (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not clear how this might meet WP:BAND or WP:CORP (if that even applies here). Prod removal and subsequent talk page discusion centers around WP:ILIKEIT instead of reliable sources demonstrating notability RadioFan (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason W. Fleischer[edit]

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

fails WP:ACADEMIC; no 3rd party references that discuss the subject; no awards etc. (Previously prodded) Tassedethe (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Although he seems to have quite a record of publications including a Nature article he's not notable per WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too early. If he becomes a full professor, he may well deserve an article. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1: half a dozen papers with over 100 cites each on Google scholar, including one in Nature with over 800, are enough to convince me that he's making a serious impact. At nomination time our article was in dire need of improvement; as De728631 states, it was a good candidate for A7 speedy deletion. However, I have made some improvements which I hope bring it up to the level of an acceptable short stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h index of 19. Comments from the nominator would be welcome Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Notable academic per David Eppstein's research. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just by clicking on the GS link above one can find around 2000 reliable and independent citations to the subject's work. Why did the nominator not note this? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Citations of a paper do not automatically equal notability. I can see that many citations are from papers by the author or co-authors, meaning they are not independent. Tassedethe (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Citations to work published in appropriate journals do confer notability under WP:Prof#C1. GS, which I am sure you have looked at, gives citations of 808, 419, 284, 139, 114, 103.... with an h index of 19. You are correct in saying that self-citations should be discounted. On the subject's home page you will find that he has published 47 papers. It is interesting to consider what would be the result if an author cited in every one of his papers all the papers he had written previously. If he had written N papers then he would get approximately (assuming N to be a large number) (N squared)/2 self-citations. With N = 47 this would give 1105 self-citations. This still leaves 900 cites by others, which, on the basis of past precedent, is enough to ensure notability. However, my own inspection of the citation data suggests that the number of self-cites is not nearly as large as this. My conclusion is that even with the theoretically maximum number of self-cites, notability under WP:Prof#C1 remains. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your expansion on your point. I would have to say your analysis goes way beyond what is expected of WP:BEFORE (or at least my expectation of that guideline). And even if I had done it myself WP:Prof#C1 makes no mention of any citation number, h-index or publication count to act as a notability threshold. Tassedethe (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before editing in an area of Wikipedia that is new to them, editors are often advised to lurk around for a while to learn the standards and conventions that prevail there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lavalette[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet either WP:POLITICIAN or WP:PROF. Does not meet general WP:N criteria either as majority of references are for internal Socialist Workers Party (UK) (ie self-published) works. TreveX^talk 13:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Elected local politician with extensive list of publications. Very nicely done page. I can't for the life of me figure out how Wikipedia would be improved by the deletion of this material. Publications OF the SWP are not "self-published works," incidentally, they are publications of the SWP, not Lavalette. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previously closed as a Keep with the closing administrator noting: The result was Keep - while not every alderman is necessarily encyclopaedic, that does not mean that no alderman is encyclopaedic. Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Aldermans/councillors can be encyclopaedic -- but the point is that this one isn't because he clearly doesn't meet the criteria no matter how "niceley done" the page is. Lavalette meets none of the notability criteria for academics here or politicians here. The references given are either articles about something else in which Lavalette is mentioned/quoted in passing or works published by the Socialist Workers Party, of which he is a member. TreveX^talk 16:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a politician, not an author, and as a local alderman he's going to have to get over the bar by General Notability Guidelines rather than the specific guidelines for politicians. So no need to quote chapter and verse about either of those, they don't apply. So, is this a person who is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial, and reliable articles in the media? THAT is the question. Deletionists absolutely fucking hate it when I start examining this question with a search of Google for the exact phrase, but I am a man of science and I believe in random sampling and probability theory. In a huge haystack, there are apt to be needles. Google hits on this specific, uncommon name = 52,400. That is a TON.

In an ideal world, the nominator would themselves run a Google search, see that a name generated 52,400 returns, and start tagging for more sources instead of hauling the article to AfD for annihilation, knowing full well that chances are there are 3 keepers in a haystack that large. That didn't happen, so let's play this hand out, shall we?

THIRD ITEM ON THE FIRST PAGE GENERATED BY THE GOOGLE SEARCH (!!!) is an article from The Guardian. "Time is of the essence AN INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL LAVELETTE". Umm, since there were a couple links posted for me, here's one for the nominator. WP:BEFORE. That's ONE independent, non-trivial, reliable source. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We see from the article in The Guardian (which Wikipedia notes was established in 1821 and has a circulation of nearly 280,000 in 2011) that Lavalette was the founder of a group called Social Work Action Network. Let's google that for more hay, shall we? That's another 23,100 hits for that exact phrase, many of which should be mineable for this article. At this point, I'm willing to bet 20 American Dollars that there is adequate sourcing out there on this guy... Still, rules are rules and we must all follow the rules, otherwise somebody might try to slip in an article through the cracks at Wikipedia and we mustn't have that. So let's take another look at our Google search for a couple more keeper hits, shall we... Coverage of the only SWP councilor in Britain (a claim to notability, even if he was recently defeated) is not surprisingly made IN THE SWP PRESS ITSELF. That's probably not gonna cut the mustard at AfD, but I do bring it up because this is the sort of thing that a serious WP editor writing a serious biography, like this one, is apt to use. Don't wrinkle your nose, available sources are mined and sometimes "very nicely done" encyclopedia pages are produced as a result. That's what we're shooting for, is it not — a nicely done encyclopedia? Still, I understand that there's going to have to be more here than just that. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS PIECE by Edge Hill University notes that Lavalette gave the keynote speech at an academic seminar on children's rights, indicating his position as a recognized expert. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blog Islamophobia Watch notes that Lavalette is in the front rank of those fighting against the right wing English Defense League, per THIS LINK. Oh, dear, it's a blog. Point is: this is one of the leading left-Socialist politicians in Britain, not some random city councilor of Smalltown. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's reportage on Lavalette from THE WEEKLY WORKER, newpaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain. No, the CPGB and the SWP are not the same organization. Far from it. Quite the opposite. This is, in fact, independent, significant, and reliable coverage from a left wing news source — no different than Fox News being cited on a Republican Party politician in the USA, with the proviso that the Communist Party of Great Britain is apt to be more "reliable" in their coverage than Fox News. I do not jest, I am serious. That's TWO. Carrite (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of blogs on Lavalette and book reviews on the multitude of things he has written, but that's not what we're gonna do to find that third source. Let's go to the local mainstream newspaper, shall we? The Lancashire Evening Post of Preston. And here's A 2004 NEWS ACCOUNT IN THAT PAPER of an invitation extended by the Palestinian Authoriity to Lavalette inviting him to spend a week in the West Bank to develop his project to make Preston a sister city of Nablus. THAT'S THREE. I could go on, but I don't want to have to spend my time defending an article that never should have been challenged in the first place. The subject of this article CLEARLY passes WP:GNG. An obvious Keep. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per Carrite. As a cursory Google Web, Google Books and Google Scholar search shows, a well-known figure, even if from a minor party. BTW, it would be nice to format the "publications" list. For books (like the one reviewed here), it would be nice to supply the ISBN for a quick look up, or at least the publisher's name; for newspaper/magazine/journal articles (such as this) , the name of the periodical. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite. This coverage is about as good as a politician of his ilk is likely to get in Britain unless he gets involved in a scandal or pulls off some spectacular stunt, both of which I would regard as poor reasons for inclusion in an encyclopedia. So this is a test of whether Wikipedia is willing to include minority political interests or not. On the whole, I think it should. Context is everything when judging notability. --AJHingston (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carrite lays out a strong case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celahir Séregon (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Moin[edit]

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

Lack of WP:NOTABILITY Monphi (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Note the the nominator did not place an AfD tag at the article's page, as required by WP:AfD. I am having a hard time viewing this nomination as anything but disruptive. Even a cursory look shows that the subject is not merely notable but famous. Passes both WP:PROF and WP:BIO several times over. A named chair at Stanford - that by itself is already enough to pass WP:PROF#C5. Several prestigious prizes, including the Humboldt Prize, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, and several others, fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (enough to pass WP:PROF#C3), etc, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. ISI highly cited is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, the AAAS and APS fellows pass #C3 as even more do the NAS and NAE fellowships that are not yet mentioned in his article, the named chair is a clear pass of #C5, and the Humboldt Prize and Fluid Dynamics Prize arguably pass #C2. I don't want to guess at whether the nominator is severely ignorant of the standards for academic biographies here or has some other motivation, but this was a really bad nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Look at the GS cites, for heaven's sake. This nomination amounts to vandalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Snow Keep Nominator made a mistake, it happens, but we should not take any more time on this matter. Ray^Talk 01:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Irresponsible nomination. I've nothing else to say. Salih (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A course of action often followed by editors who have made an egregiously inappropriate AfD nomination is to withdraw the nomination gracefully and move on to other things. This reduces the workload of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Professor holding a named professorship. Carrite (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. It is not an exaggeration to say that Moin has been arguably the leader in turbulence research for more than a decade. His h-index is around 60 (WoS). Perhaps nom did not do the due diligence beforehand and I think xxan's suggestion of quick nom withdrawal would be a most graceful close. Nom, please don't allow further time to be wasted and close this down. Agricola44 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. Posted request for same on nom talk. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy keep. Easily passes WP:ACADEMIC. GcSwRhIc (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person has produced notable advancements and contributions according to the sources. Fufills the criteria according to WP:PROF. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. In Persian Wikipedia, his 3 lines article is only referenced by his own web page and starts with : "Professor Parviz Moein is one of the most significant university professors in the word" after that thought it is a self written article, and also English article, are about a trivial person, but now I regret to not search more about him.Monphi (talk) 18:03, 3 June 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.