< 6 November	8 November >

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty Electric[edit]

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

Non-notable band Alexandria (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 October 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, Courcelles 23:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an easy rescue; they have toured nationally with other bands, and there are lots of good citatons that prove their notability as a band. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, a notable band. The major groups they have toured with wouldn't choose them otherwise. Dream Focus 09:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has bare URL links, subject to linkrot, which should be converted into inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Touring as an opening act would not meet WP:MUSICBIO, since notability is not inherited, and appearances at events such as Burning Man would only meet notability guidelines if the band were a "headline" act on a given day of the festival. However, the longevity of the band as shown by their discography, and their representation by a notable indie label, combine to meet the WP:MUSICBIO test. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect Beeblebrox (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masood Ahmad[edit]

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

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Can we get the non-English spelling of his name? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:47, 25 October 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) 00:06, 31 October 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, Courcelles 23:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without any concrete evidence that anything has been published (worldcat entry, ISBNs, etc) or solid biographical material, this person is not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamaat al-Muslimeen, the sect he founded and led. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 15 November 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Scriven[edit]

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

no indication of meeting guidelines at WP:PROF. References given are not significant coverage. noq (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept because Scriven is the President of a significant accredited college and also the Chair of a quite influential Adventist non-profit. Surely Presidents of colleges are significant enough to be written about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraoihp (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep President of two fairly important Adventist colleges, meets WP:PROF. We normally interpret "major academic institution" to mean anything over the trivial level--if it meant research university, or even university, it would have said so. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 4 November 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, Courcelles 23:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:PROF, criteria section #5: the person "holds or has held a named chair appointment"..."at a major institution of higher education and research." Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep President of two fairly important Adventist colleges, and therefore meets WP:PROF. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Reliable Sources and WP:PROF. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As DGG said, WP:PROF has been met. Dream Focus 10:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Poorly written article. Scriven is a trained theologian with a traditional Seventh Day Adventist stance on evolution.[1] Mathsci (talk) 10:54, 12 November 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. v/r - T P 16:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calaris[edit]

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

Was tagged as a speedy but I believe wider review is necessary. On the surface, this appears to be a software publisher that is not notable. Article sources are weak. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 31 October 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, Courcelles 23:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A games company which appears to have a single notable game (which appears to have a single solid review) and only substantial coverage on a fan site. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:06, 14 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Contemporary Laws[edit]

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

New journal, has not yet published a single issue. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recreate if and when it both becomes a published journal, and has obtained notability. TJRC (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without prejudice, agree with rationale and caveats provided, by TJRC (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The order is New Journal→Notability→Wikipedia-Articel, not the other way round. No product announcements, please.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creation premature. --Crusio (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Stitt[edit]

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

lacks notability, could not find anything on google and does not follow the manual of style King Curtis Gooden (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NotJustYet to Horrid Henry: The Movie, as the one place where this new child actor has any decent verifiability and where readers can read about her in context to her role in that film. Her one sourcable role fails WP:ENT, and what coverage she does have is for her debut appearance in that film.[2] That redirect serves for now for this essentially WP:BLP1E. And in an aside, I am quite surprised at the nominator's poor deletion rationale "could not find anything on google and does not follow the manual of style" as multiple sources for verifiability ARE quite easy to find, and a poor article format is usually preferred to be addressed through regular editing.[3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the redirect As said I agree with the redirect and please remember not to bite the newcomers, it was scary enough putting something up for deletion.King Curtis Gooden (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination rationale should hopefully reflect as much policy and guideline diligence as possible, else it might itself be scrutinized. No insult was intended. The word "surprised" was a way of showing my raised eyebrows, nothing more. The redirect serves the project quite well... and that the article was premature was a good catch, after all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect someplace Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 14 November 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 WP:DABNAME, disambiguation pages should be located at the main title when there is no common term. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Davis[edit]

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

This page is unnecessary: all it does is redirect enquiries typed in as "Glen Davis" to a proper "Glen Davis (disambiguation)" page.

It does not do anything else (and does not need to do even this: users searching for articles that include "Glen Davis" in the title should be taken directly to the Glen Davis (disambiguation) page instead.

Two additional items:

1) The order of the above used to be the reverse (i.e. the "Glen Davis (disambiguation)" page was redirected to the "Glen Davis" page, which acted as a redundant disamibiguation page); I changed it before proposing this page for deletion.

2) The "Glen Davis (disambiguation)" page contains an entry for tje "Glenn Davis (disambiguation)" page, "Glenn", two "n's", as it should. Neither this necessary link nor the latter page will be affected by the proposed deletion. Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all this is now a redirect and should've been listed at WP:Rfd not at "articles" for deletion. But formalities aside, copying and pasting content to the (disambiguation) page like you did is not a valid procedure. You should have requested a move over redirect to keep the revision history. That said, Glen Davis has by far the longer revision history of the two and should therefore be kept. It served just fine as a disambiguation (which does not have to be in the page name at all) until your edit. De728631 (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apologies if I am unfamiliar with the nuance between "Delete" and "Move" but your argument is absurd: the page does *nothing*. It's set up as a disambiguation page to do the job of the *actual* "Glen Davis (disambiguation)" page. And what "history" is worth perserving of a *two entry* ersatz disambiguation page? Fine, move the history to the actual "Glen Davis (disambiguation)" page. Just get rid of a page that adds nothing and only serves to clutter up Wikipedia.Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert whatever the nominator has done, as it violates WP:DABNAME and, more importantly WP:CC-BY-SA. This was under the correct title before. Pages only need "(disambiguation)" in their titles if there is a main article under the title, which there is not here. This discussion clutters up Wikipedia more than a page that helps readers find what they are looking for. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revert changes. As per Phil Bridger, Glen Davis is the correct location for this disambiguation page, as laid out by WP:DABNAME. All changes should be undone and Glen Davis (disambiguation) reinstated as a redirect. Also I should add that Glenn Davis (disambiguation) is a perfectly valid item for this dab, please see WP:MOSDAB#"See also" section which recommends adding likely misspelling and terms which could be potentially confused. France3470 (talk) 23:41, 9 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Camp[edit]

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

A non-notable archive of a a set of non-notable web sites. None of the reference provided meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. Prod was removed without comment so bringing her for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for total lack of any obvious notability. The article itself appears to follow the theme of the website; that is to say, it appears to be somewhat amusing and entirely fictional. Kill it with fire. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete independent references are not an optional extra. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:10, 14 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Expreso del Rock[edit]

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

Author objected to prod. Prod reason was "Dubious notability, No appropriate references (Many Social Media "references" and external links were pruned)". During decline of prod, author did not improve the article, so it still faces the same problems. Hasteur (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, fails prima facie WP:GNG. Quick web search doesn't show any promising reliable sources. Brianhe (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding reliable sources that address this topic. There's some web sources that confirm its existence, but no news or research coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete independent references are not an optional extra.Stuartyeates (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Note:: I have attempted to help the author by fixing a citation to a college thesis. Having read the context of the citation It appears to be a survey of Latin American internet radio broadcast. The atricle has a single sentence mention in a 131 page thesis. A passing mention that doesn't really seem to lend "Academic Credibility" notability to the article. Hasteur (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I wasn't sure what to do with this AFD when I first saw it. It took me some searching to come up with a close. I had to discount the first three delete !votes because they arn't based on standard practice. I found a large quantity of "Features of..." articles on Wikipedia so it appears that the communiuty does not consider it advertising on a software where the features themselves are considered notable. Further, per WP:SPLIT, articles that are 50kb or greater should be considered for merge when a subtopic is considered notable. Per WP:SUMMARY, we should include a summary paragraph about the features and move the "See also" link from the top of the Skype article to the bottom. Aside from the policy driven answer, this specific discussion has no consensus. I'll note that two of the merge !votes were not specifically in support of deleting the article. v/r - T P 16:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Features of Skype[edit]

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

Reads like an ad even the title, unnecessary article. Sandman888 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 'Cause the article Skype is about the features of Skype already. Anything (good and well sourced) in this article not there should be moved over there. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Steve Dufour said it right. Neutrality^talk 04:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Skype article is lengthy. Merging the information to the main article might then lead to users in the future re-creating this same type of article due to the main article becoming too long. The following are some facets in the Features of Skype article that aren't present in the Skype article:

•SMS text messaging

•PocketSkype

•Subscription calling plans

•Voicemail

•Screen sharing

•Skype Web Toolbar

•Skype Prime

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reliable Sources, a very encyclopedic and informative article, there is too much information to simply merge, this should stay as it is. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets coverage, referenced in the article already, for these various things. WP:GNG has been met. This information works best as its own article, than made to bloat the size of another article. No reason to "trim", that is to delete over 90% of it, and then "merge" a token amount either. Dream Focus 08:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Skype. Otherwise, delete. Jtrainor (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Skype per WP:SUMMARY. This list is notable and verifiable, but I think it's excessive. The features should ideally be summarized in the main article. Steven Walling • talk 00:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either Merge with Skype or purge the duplicated content from the Skype article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Skype. A list of features of a software package which already has its own article does not warrant a separate, standalone article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:37, 14 November 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy movement in North America[edit]

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

This already exists at List_of_"Occupy"_protest_locations and List_of_North_American_"Occupy"_protests. Since everything involving occupy is contentious lately (see WP:RECENTISM), I am nominating this for AFD instead of CSD A10. v/r - T P 20:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Neutral - Compared to Occupy movement in the United States, which is virtually identical to this article, this article is more comprehensive, because it includes Canada, and could include Mexico too. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After consideration, I rescind my keep vote, as the "United States" link in the Occupy Navigation bar links to Occupy movement in the United States. The intention here was to create a more concise, easier-to-read list compared to the large list article List of Occupy movement protest locations. However, with the link in the nav bar going to the U.S. page, that's good enough. Removing rescue tag too, as I'm the one whom placed it in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Occupy movements in Canada and/or Mexico are notable (or become notable) then have articles on them. It does not seem to serve any special purpose to lump the 3 nations together. It is not as if the movement spread across the borders. (Will somebody suggest lumping Occupy and Tea Party into one "21st Century American protests" article? That's also possible.) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth an "Activism in 2011" type thing. They are pretty different but the roots might be similar enough. Wonder if there are sources out there.--v/r - T P 20:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to get at is that articles should be about distinct topics. When you start combining topics there is no end. There are plenty of sources (news commentary etc.) that discuss both Occupy and Tea Party, but that's not really the job of an encyclopedia.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, my bad. I had to read it several times to understand. You do make a solid point, once I got it.--v/r - T P 21:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is almost an exact copy of Occupy movement in the United States (which itself is just a partial copy of List of "Occupy" protest locations#United States), with the addition of Occupy Canada and Occupy Toronto. It's unnecessarily duplicative. Either make a separate Occupy movement in Canada article, or merge the US article with the North American article. —SW— ^communicate 23:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. —SW— ^talk 23:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a copy of Occupy movement in the United States and the geographic boundary is too arbitrary. Is the a WP:POINT trying to be made here? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. A near-duplicate of Occupy movement in the United States. Per User:Steve Dufour, create separate articles for the movements in Canada and Mexico if they are notable. Not necessary to combine topics.--JayJasper (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jab843 (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's next Occupy movement in the Universe for more contrived comprehensiveness? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States. The article I link is a spin-off directly transcluding onto the main List of Occupy movement protest locations article. It has 300 references, the same pictures, same links, same everything. No need for this article. — Moe ε 15:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above or convert to a category. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already sufficiently covered in other articles as discussed above in detail. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad, violates WP:OC for no good reason. -waywardhorizons (talk) 19:48, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 15:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khetcho[edit]

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

Nothing in this article suggests the subject is noteworthy and the single reference provided only mentions him in passing as an assistant to Armen Garo. A fairly thorough search via Google does nothing to further distinguish the subject as being noteworthy aside from his position as an assistant to Garo. B.Rossow · talk 20:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need more than a single (apparently partisan) source for a biography. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:14, 14 November 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) Discussion has been open for over a month, without significant additional rationale for deletion, and multiple opinions given with valid arguments to keep. I don't think there's any question that WP:CONSENSUS has been reached in this. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Blaustein[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

not a prominent figure; page appears to be for self-promotion/business Etihwttam (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dunno, that is an impressive resume. The tone is promotional, but that can be addressed through editing. Not sure about this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.

I hope Wikipedia allows public voting - I don't have an account here but I am slightly disturbed by this site's continuous policies to delete perfectly legitimate article pages. I'm just a regular gamer, but I like to keep up to date on the grievous botch-ups you editors do on the Wikipedia game pages.

Jeremy Blaustein has worked on some major videogame franchises over the years, such as Castlevania, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Dragon Quest, and plenty of others. He has rubbed shoulders with the biggest people in the industry. Although he doesn't make games, he is responsible for these games reaching us.

Here is a lengthy article on his life, reprinted on several websites, detailing some of his work: http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/jb/jb.htm

If you feel the need, perhaps edit or alter the page slightly, but to delete it would be a travesty and, frankly, absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.180.36 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — 92.136.180.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. Enough evidence in top rated products. (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Note to closer: This user was blocked for disruptive editing in wikipedia general an in AfD related matters. Please take this into consideration when closing. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note to closer: This AfD was not included in the AfD log, listing it now. Please consider the listing time when closing. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His body of work looks notable to me. B.Rossow · talk 20:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. I haven't found many sources that might be considered reliable beyond a doubt, but Ultraexactzz is right in that this is pretty impressive. I'm listing what I found in the hopes that if I throw enough stuff against a wall, something will stick. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Question - What account are you accusing of self-promoting? Have they been pointed towards WP:COI yet? 192.251.134.5 (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article shows reliable sources have praised all of the voice acting in different things he was a voice actor in. He has worked on a lot of notable series, clearly this a significant role in them. Dream Focus 17:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets requirements for both WP:List and WP:BIO. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article has existed since April 2006, and the article's creator, a long-time participant of WikiProject Anime and Manga, has created more than 150 Wikipedia articles in the areas of anime and voice actors, of which this is just one. I see no reason whatsoever to suspect this article was created "for self-promotion/business". --Lambiam 22:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article definitely appears NOT to be for self-promotion/business, per the nomination to delete.
Keep: Has reliable sources and generally well written. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:37, 13 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Phillips[edit]

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

Biographical article that does not have any reliable sources to back up the claims made about the subject, so unverifiable by readers. Clearly violates Wikipedia's rules on biographical articles. Prod was contested on the grounds that "it provides information about a living person who has made many contributions to medicine", so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, I can't find any sources that show the subject to be notable. What little coverage there is seems more tied to the inventions themselves, rather than to the inventor. Usual Caveats apply, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion. Mr. Phillips has created the wikipedia article about himself and advertised for his products in inappropriate articles such as neuropathy. Doors22 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Monti (lawyer)[edit]

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

No notability as an individual or as a professional lawyer. In that context fails WP:CORPDEPTH and as an individual fails WP:ANYBIO criteria. Self publicist - this is an autobiography and almost certainly an advertisement - cf WP:ARTSPAM. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of notability. All of the references suffer from at least one of the following problems (and some of them more than one): Dead link; link to search page showing the result No document found for the search "andrea monti" (Nessun documento trovato per la ricerca "andrea monti"); link to page not mentioning Andrea Monti, though mentioning something related to something mentioned in the article; link to a page with only a passing mention of Monti; link to a list in which Monti or one of his works appears; work by rather than about him (or even work by someone else which he has translated); link to an article on Wikipedia. Not a single one of them could by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as significant coverage about him in a reliable source independent of him. A Google search produces www.andreamonti.net, Wikipedia, linkedin, facebook, etc etc. Also, after filtering out Google hits which are about other people of the same name, such as an Argentinian tango dancer, and a newspaper editor, we are left with not a great deal on this Andrea Monti. In short, there is no evidence at all of coming anywhere near satisfying English Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Self-written, and essentially self-promotion. (Note: PROD contested by Andrea Monti with no edit summary.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All, I've checked the issues you mention and I can say that:

dead link: correct. The problem lies in the fact that IlSole24's search engine need to be given a time frame to produce results. The link provides only recent results. Is it acceptable to link to single entries?
link not mentioning "Monti": this is related to the "Telecom Sismi scandal". The link has been included to let people have information about the issue. No problem in deleting. The link to Paul Ludlow's book is related to support the claim about ALCEI
link to page with a passing mention: this link - coming from a daily newspaper - is a supporting evidence for a statement included in the page. Is there an alternative I can follow to fix the problem?
link to a list in which Monti or one of his works appears: this is the reference to a scientifc paper. Is there a different way to support the statement? Would it be acceptable to link to the full text?
work by rather than about him: I do translate English books into Italian, so - as happens with other bios of people that do things like that - I just mentioned it.
the "Mr. Nobody" issue: true, there are a lot of unrelated entry in Google, but this - IMHO - is not a mean to infer that the page should be deleted.

Following your suggestion I tried to edit the page to see if might become acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreamonti (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete No coverage. (There's a old saying: The lawyer who presses his own suit has a fool for a drycleaner. No wait... The lawyer who writes his own Wikipedia article has a fool for a publicist.) EEng (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little to no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Chris (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys, but I'll get more information. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also contacted a notable attorney who works in the same field, and is a Wikipedian, but he's never heard of Monti, but promised to get back to me if he can help edit the article. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 15 November 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. v/r - T P 15:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Classic female blues[edit]

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

I've found many tangential references to the genre, but little to nothing that explicitly defines it. Almost every source I've seen just uses "classic" and "female" as adjectives to describe the artist rather than the genre. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Allmusic certainly uses the term at Classic female blues. Apparently Blues for Dummies (1998) uses the term too (see here) - for what that's worth, and a google books search turns up quite a few references (whether that makes a genre is of course debatable). I also notice that Allmusic says 'more accurately "Vaudeville Blues"' and that produced quite a lot of hits, so perhaps we should think about a move. There is also a switch in the historiography here from an emphasis on male acoustic musicians of the '30s, to an emphasis on the formative role of these female singers. This group needs to be covered in detail somewhere, I am just bit unsure at the moment if this is the right place. I will also check my collection of blues books when I have time and before I settle an opinion.--SabreBD (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a distinct and notable genre, whether it's called classic female blues or vaudeville blues; see Talk:List_of_classic_female_blues_singers for some reliable sources that define the term. Ewulp (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. A notable genre of music, with sources that address the topic directly. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those sources except #1 just use it as a descriptive phrase ("Classic female blues singers") to describe the SINGER, not the GENRE. Tell me how that's addressing the genre directly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments of User:Northamerica1000, this has a lot of potential references that could be easily incorperated into this article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course it's rare that any musical genre is described without reference to composers or performers who represent that style. Revisiting this page, we have Oliver and Harrison describing "'Classic' blues" as the work of "urban women singers" who were "seldom recorded self-accompanied and were usually backed by jazz musicians" (geography and style of accompaniment figure into this definition). Stewart-Baxter describes a "hybrid" form containing "elements other than pure blues". Lieb says "the style was marked by a combination of blues and material from black minstrel shows and vaudeville" and that "with the rise of swing music in the thirties, the Classic Blues went out of fashion". Note the word style there—Lieb is describing a style, not a particular singer.

But, for the sake of argument, suppose sources that satisfactorily define classic female blues as a distinct genre were lacking. Can you explain why this failure should lead us to delete Classic female blues? The term, like British Invasion, has been used by many authorities to describe a phenomenon in the music business, and to distinguish a body of work created by certain artists at a certain time. As such, it merits an article. Ewulp (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of the sources identify it as a genre though. If 20 books say "Classic female blues singers x y and z" without elaboration, does that automatically make it a genre? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources provided by Northamerica1000 describe the style, and #1 refers to it as a genre. Here [19] is another source that describes classic/vaudeville blues, and refers to it as a genre. For a more elaborate description, page 104 of the Harvard Dictionary of Music seen here (right column) has this: "In classic blues, a ragtime or stride pianist or a New Orleans style jazz band accompanies a female singer. Designed for formal presentation on stage, a song pursues a coherent theme through stanzas divided into introductory verse and chorus; 12-bar AAB structures provide only one element of the multithematic repertory". It goes on; you can read more at the link. Apart from its identity as a distinct style, the classic blues were the first blues recorded, and created a sensation at the time; until about 1926 classic female blues were the only blues recorded. The historical importance of the subject is well established. Wikipedia would be diminished by the loss of this article. Ewulp (talk) 03:45, 11 November 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 all. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 15:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of female rock singers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced. Says nothing about the relevance of females in the genre. Fails WP:SALAT as I can find no sources explicitly about the relevance of women in the various genres. First AFD closed in 2007 with a shaky WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale from an extremely rabid inclusionist. Most of the lists are also prone to rampant edit-warring, self promotion and inclusion of non-notable, redlinked acts without a foreseen way to stop. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Are you sure you want to put all these together in 1 AfD? A search of WP shows that there is consensus for "list of female <whatevers>" in general. edit-warring, self promotion, inclusion of non-notable & redlinked are not reason for deletion. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per Exit2DOS2000, I don't see how these can be discussed all in one go. Also, very few lists are sourced independently of the articles. For what it's worth, I would say Keep for List of female rock singers given that nearly all of them have articles, the list is a good length, and the theme (female and rock) doesn't strike me as a trivial intersection. I haven't studied the others in the nomination. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that lists in general are often unsourced. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Needs splitting. Definitely keep List of female rock singers - there are loads of books specifically about women in rock. Some of the others also look perfectly reasonable. Not so sure why female Australian composers should be separated from other Australian composers, though, but it looks like a merge at worst. Lack of sources is a poor rationale for deletion - many of these would be easy to source.--Michig (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above "list of female <whatevers>" is common. Some of the lists do need cleaned up but then so do many of our articles. Deleting to fix problems doesn't seem like the best solution. --Tbennert (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable list on a notable subject. The rationale of "Most of the lists are also prone to rampant edit-warring, self promotion and inclusion of non-notable, redlinked acts without a foreseen way to stop" is quite frankly a piss-poor reason to justify deletion of anything. Lugnuts (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL – These are functional and useful lists to navigate biography and band articles. Contrary to the statement in the nomination, "Completely unsourced", the articles List of classic female blues singers and List of female composers by birth year do have sources in them. Also, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, not whether or not they are present in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All per arguments of User:Northamerica1000 and User:Lugnuts, these are extreemly encyclopedic lists that many people would find interesting. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Bad nomination, nominator listing irrelevant reasons for deletion. If something needs more sources, then tag it as such. Follow WP:BEFORE and try to find some yourself before wasting everyone's time at an AFD. List of female rock singers is nothing but blue links! You don't need references of course unless someone out there sincerely doubts the information. Click on their link, their article stating they are rock singers, and refers to them as female. Dream Focus 19:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; I'm not convinced that these lists are unencyclopedic, and - as noted - most of them are filled with blue links. You might have more luck with a separate nomination for each list and a more cogent argument as to why the list should be deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per all the above keeps ... not a snowball's chance of deletion here. And yes ; AfD is not for cleanup, as a number of editors have already commented, and "prone to edit warring" is not a rationale for deletion either.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:12, 12 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasna[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person. Hardly meets WP:NMG. bender235 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable person. I can hardly find anything about her, she covered a song of a famous Moroccan singer back in 2000 and that's about it. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Tachfin (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - especially per Tachfin. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 14 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This one night event was covered only once, in 2010, by reliable local sources. I have not been able to find reliable sources for the 2011 event, and, should they come up, I would be surprised if they would testify of significant coverage. This show may grow into something notable into the future, but I don't think we are quite there yet. Racconish^Tk 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promo creation of a not very wiki noteworthy event by a COI user - a minor merge to the parent article should suffice. The detail is already there ( see - Davina Reichman ) but a minor merge perhaps Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based upon talk page research here [20] as well as my own inability to turn up any significant reliable source coverage that was not only promotional material from the lead-up to the event it appears this show is non-notable for Wikipedia. The bulk of coverage I can find is event announcements, and some of the coverage there is not about the show itself, but the brand. Overall it seems to fail WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please refer to some reliable sources I've listed in my !vote below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spammy from its very creation; not notable then or now; see WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable--only one proper hit in a newspaper article, announcements don't count. Previous deletion discussion could have been closed as delete, but that's neither here nor there. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I voted to keep the first time around, but the lack of any reliable sources for the second show - in particular ones discussing it after the event - changes that. It worried me at the time that there weren't any, and by now there should have been. A merge and redirect to Davina Reichman, per Off2riorob, would make sense. I have no objection to recreating it if secondary sources later turn up for a second or subsequent show. - Bilby (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons I mentioned last month when it was at the previous AFD. Look at the press coverage they mention on their site. http://beingbornagain.net/buttons/Press.html Do you doubt any of that is real? Is that not significant coverage in reliable sites? Ample coverage I found last time at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/designers-put-their-art-into-show/story-e6frg6nf-1225831959837 is still valid. Dream Focus 23:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source for which you are providing a link was in the article when nominated. As you can see here, it has been removed by another editor. I suspect this is because this source mentioned Emily Fitzgerald, the other founder of the show. You can read here the explanation provided by the other editor. Concerning the sources indicated on the web site of the show, can you point to one significant one which would not be self-published?Racconish^Tk 23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being Born Again Couture, Sydney Morning Herald Style Insert, 22 April 2010. It also had that image and a mention of that section on the front cover of that notable newspaper. They also list various notable magazines. Dream Focus 05:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Concerning the SMH, I see here and here a picture with no caption and no mention of the show. Do I miss something? And I don't see in the list another source that is not used and could be considered reliable. In any case, I don't think the threshold of notability is finding another ref for the 2010 show: it would still be a single event, at least in terms of reliable coverage.Racconish^Tk 07:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject's pressbook is not acceptable as a reference in and of itself. It might well lead to citable material, however not everything the subject adds to its scrapbook is automatically substantial (non-trivial), reliable, third-party, notable, or even multiple, etc. Nobody has said the subject fabricated anything, though certain editors here using those articles have, in fact, synthesized improperly from them. It's extremely problematic when an editor here is willing to say "look at all the press the subject gathered about itself," without so much as a cursory confirmation of the contents. It shows a failure to understand why the subject isn't in the best position to report on itself or to decide what's reliable, notable, or even actual coverage. The subject may include ANYTHING IT WANTS, even when it might be objectively questionable. Supporting articles for a subject that is vain enough to scrapbook its own unsubstantial or irrelevant coverage, on the basis of the scrapbook itself, is foolhardy. When the words are right there to check – as in the case of "Art Weaves Its Spell" – and remove all doubt that it's not actually covering the subject, mentioning it here as coverage at all moves away from foolhardy toward dishonest. JFHJr (㊟) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale above; not notable then nor now. Neutrality^talk 04:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Coverage in Australian press is to the contrary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per comments above, SPS, COI, persistent uncivil attitude of COI editors making this article "unstable" by war editing and sheer ignorance and disregard for policies. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But edit-warring and ignorance are not reasons for deletion. Otherwise we'd have no articles on the Balkan or Justin Bieber. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe in "buts" – articles are sometimes deleted after AFD and prevented from being recreated due to considerable disputes over content – the Alex Day article had this problem and recreation block applied. When articles reach a high enough level of disruption that it takes too much time to keep dealing with them, and wastes more editors time than is necessary, especially in the case of a trivial Stub such as this, rather than a BLP as long as Justin B. it's not worth the bandwidth – trash and block until someone comes up with a sandbox draft worth considering, simple as that. Also, in this case, Dom and Davina's friends are simply ~~being pig-headed~~ addlepated, as you have seen. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe in pork butt. I am a member of the bacon cabal, co-writer of Bacon explosion, author of the Ham template: please don't insult the little porkers by calling these editors "pig-headed". My point, though, remains: you may call for salt to prevent disruptive recreation, and I'll be glad to salt it for you, but that in itself is no reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sure I have no idea what that all meant, so I replaced pig-headed with "addlepated", to make my point more animal-friendly. Salt is bad for the heart when used to excess. Gotta trot off now, The Beatles are playing Piggies. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 07:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Optionally redirect to Davina Reichman, but I'm not sure that article is much less problematic and in the very same ways, for the very same reasons. While it's true past and ongoing SPS and COI activity have zero bearing here, they do explain why these articles are here at all. This event is not the subject of the WP:BASIC requirement of significant, reliable, and independent coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 16:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please refer to some reliable sources below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~Strong Keep - Per availability of reliable sources:

Safe, Georgina (19 February 2010). "Designers put their art into couture". The Australian. p. 5.
(April 22, 2010.) "Mobile Canvas, fusing fashion and art" Sydney Morning Herald.
(April 16-18, 2010), "What's on: Sydney." The Australian Financial Review.
Broughton, Cate (April 2010). "Art Weaves Its Spell." The Wentworth Courier. pp 38
(April 22, 2010) "Designs On You" Why wearable art has never looked so good." (Style insert). Sydney Morning Herald.

Reliable sources exist that cover the topic in detail, beyond a passing mention. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I have seen you comment previously "Speedy keep" - have you read - Wikipedia:Speedy keep - if you have - could you please point me to the clause that you are asserting makes it applicable in this and similar situations - Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed it - I do wonder if you have ever read WP:speedy keep but never mind - I also want to point out to you that adding strong to keep is also not considered in closures - Keep is plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 2 of the sources above, The Australian and The Australian Financial Review, were already referenced in the article when brought here. They were clearly not sufficient. A 3rd one, The Sydney Morning Herald, was already suggested by Dream Focus. Neither him nor Northamerica1000 have addressed my concern here above: though this source is indicated on the website of Being Born Again, there is nothing more than a picture, with no indication it is connected with Being Born Again. No text. I have found nothing on the SMH web site. I am not implying an article does not exist, but on the basis of the 2 scans available on the web site of Being Born Again, there is no way to ascertain it deals specifically with our subject. At this point, we don't even know if it is 2 different articles in the same issue or a single one. Northamerica1000 refers here above to an article entitled "Designs On You" Why wearable art has never looked so good.", while in the Ref section of the article, the title is different, "Mobile Canvas, fusing fashion and art". This suggests me he has had no further access to the source than this and that. As is, WP:SYN. Now the 4th source, The Wentworth Courier. The article is written by an intern, which does not plead for its reliability. More important, there is strictly no mention in this article of Being Born Again. It is about a "D&Em fashion label to be launched", which is not even mentioned by the 2 first sources. As is, WP:COATRACK. To summarize: these 2 last sources, not cited inline, do not deal specifically with Being Born Again. Hence, not WP:RS. Furthermore, a key issue, reminded by Orangemike is WP:TOOSOON/WP:UPANDCOMING. All these sources relate - or don't - to the April 2010 event. No reliable coverage yet on what may have happened after. — Racconish^Tk 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that the Wentworth Courier article by intern Cate Broughton is neither particularly reliable nor relevant in any way. It doesn't even mention the subject. In fact, this cite has previously been used in a misleading way in this article to try to show notability (see here). I also agree that two apparent SMH publications on the same day, one of which is apparently a photograph, does not show anything in the way of significant coverage. Because they offer nothing of substance for the prose of the article – they don't support any statements at all – they should be excluded from the article, and from consideration here. There's simply no difference between a blurb and the section it's pointing to; there's also no value in a picture that requires WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to make a noteworthy mention. In short, they're neither reliable (especially for the uses proposed), nor substantial. JFHJr (㊟) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How could we consider as an evidence of notability a self-serving quote that announces ... something different? — Racconish^Tk 18:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We can't. JFHJr (㊟) 05:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not having in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 14 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Kolarik[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance to support WP:NOTABILITY. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No assertion of notability. – Richard BB 16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failing WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getaway in Stockholm[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). A few odd blog posts about this straight to DVD documentary in Estonian and Swedish, but nothing close to sustained, significant coverage from major critics or other sources. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per available sources [21][22][23] showing this series of films covering a series of Swedish events receiving coverage enough to meet WP:NF, and the article itself as sourcable. While most of the sources are non-English, and the article has not been improved, those are reasons more to fix addressable concerns and not to delete an arguably notable topic. Notable to Sweden is fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autocar said "...As for the Getaway in Stockholm movies, I'm not quite sure what to make of them". Not exactly a ringing assertion. In Wikipedia:Notability (films) were looking for things like "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". None of these films were widely distributed, and I don't believe those links you gave are reviews by major critics. So far we've only demonstrated existence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "attributes" you refer to are NOT requirements. They are set in WP:NF to encourage searches for souces, just as "nationally known critics" is a subjective term set to encourage diligent searches, and consideration of theatrical distribution (NOT a mandate) is yet again an "attribute to consider" that is intended to encourage diligent searches for verifiability. Atuocar was offered as a magazine source to refute a claim that this series was covered only in "odd blog posts". I do not have access to the magazine's complete text, but even the snippet view appears indicative that the topic is addressed in more detail than the one sentence you quote. Also NOT being "odd blog posts" are such coverages as the news report by TV2 (Swedish), the article in Dziennik Wschodni (Polish),and the one in Aftonbladet (Swedish) (all speaking toward the topic in some manner), and the article in Dagbladet (Norweigian) which tells us how a simular Getaway in Oslo was inspired by this series. We have enough coverage in non-English sources found in a search,[24] to indicate the topic being worthy one note, even if of folks filming their actions while racing their cars illegally. Notability is dependent upon verifiability, and even the least of sources that offer the mandated WP:V need not themselves be SIGCOV. The terms V and SIGCOV should not be confused with each other, as while related, they mean different things. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're posting links to brief news items of 100 to 200 words. Two of the links above are the same text translated into different languages; a press release perhaps? Wikipedia does not include articles about films that have received such paltry attention. There are tens of thousands of such DVDs made every year. The fact that it's straight to DVD should be enough to raise eyebrows, and the lack of major media doing serious reporting is the nail in the coffin. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'm posting links...even to brief news articles... as "someone" mistakenly claimed the only information was in "a few odd blog posts" and such an inadvertant error of statement needed to be addressed, just as User:Cavarrone below addressed the mistaken claim that the film did not receive distribution. WP:SIGCOV does not require that articles dealing with the film must be of some great length, and even 100 or 200 words can be sufficiant to meet WP:GNG if the film is dealt with directly, in detail, and not in a trivial manner. And WP:Notability (films) does not require world-wide distribution for an series of independent, underground films. And I note that the TV2 news report is not trivial in the least. Many projects go straight to DVD and, even if more difficult for them, still sometimes manage to receive enough attention to be seen as worthy of notice. This is an broad-spectrum encyclopedia. We do not restrict inclusion to only English-language topics, and we do not restrict inclusion to only the "most" notable. And that tens of thousands of such DVDs may not meet inclusion criteria is on them, as this discussion is not about those others. We are simply dealing with this one... here... now... per correct application of guideline and policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GBooks hits and GNews hits support the claim of notability. More secondary coverage can be found via Google (like this). About the sentence above that "None of these films were widely distributed", I'm Italian and, for what it counts, I can say that this movie-series has received here a nation-wide promotion and distribution ([[25]]). --Cavarrone (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I fixed the copyvio/close paraphasing issues addressed by Berian. v/r - T P 15:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorota Malek[edit]

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

Individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support WP:NOTABILITY. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. Google news search shows only 3 results. Standard search shows a lot of social media, blogs, and primary/unreliable sources - again, little to no significant coverage found from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The level of coverage in reliable sources seems adequate to me; the external links section in the article contains some; the awards listed, coverage in reliable music press, seems fine. A lot of it is in non-English sources, but that shouldn't be a hinderance. By expanding the search to non-English sources, I came up with this Finnish one in just a few seconds of looking. The level of coverage I am seeing indicates that this is NOT an unknown singer with no recognition, I am comfortable that they can easily pass the standards of WP:GNG. --Jayron32 17:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Finnish article hardly amounts to significant coverage needed to support WP:NOTABILITY. reddogsix (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has reliable sources, the person whom created the article just put them in wrong, not putting them inline, but included them as external links, this is a problem that can be easily fixed. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please help me understand how the references (inline of not) are adequate enough to support any facet of notability? reddogsix (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With due respect to Jayron32 and Phoenix B 1of3, there does not seem to be any significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the sources cited, the only one which even superficially looks like a reliable and independent source is the Finnish one provided by Jayron32, and looking around that web site with the help of Google translation appears to indicate that it is a "pay for inclusion" site. I see no sign of any coverage in independent reliable sources. I don't understand the relevance of saying that references are not inline, since nobody had mentioned lack of cited references as a reason for deletion: both the nominator and the other person arguing above for deletion based their comments on their own searches. Jayron32 also refers to "the awards listed". There are two of these, the Bandbreiten Music Award 2005, and 3rd place in the Austrian Music Award 2009, so I looked into both of those. I can find no evidence that either of them is notable. Both of them are mentioned almost exclusively in personal web pages of its recipients, blog posts, myspace, youtube, facebook etc. Also, over 80% of the Google hits for the Bandbreiten Music Award disappear if we exclude "Dorota Malek" and 2005. That is to say that the overwhelming majority of coverage for this award are on pages promoting Dorota Malek. Apart from those two awards, the list of career achievements in the article is: "support slots" with several other acts, releasing one EP (which I find is available on Napster, iTunes, etc) and one self-produced solo album, appearing once at a festival in Linz, and making a guest appearance on one track by a band which may have some slight notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this award (bandbreiten) is now called "austrian newcomer award".. and please dont delete that picture 'cause its own work - Doro100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doro100 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC) — Doro100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Neozoon 00:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC) checked several of the references, for me good enough to keep the article. [reply]
Comment - borderline copyvio of this. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 14 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold (Novel)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Still over 6 months from being published so no chance of third party reviews or anything significant for some time yet. Does not meet the threshold criteria and as an unpublished work is specifically discouraged. Due for publication in June 2012. noq (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The book hasn't been released yet and hasn't gotten any sort of publicity that would be considered reliable. It's just WP:TOOSOON. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete in accordance with Tokyogirl79 and WP:CRYSTAL. The inclusion of the article may be justifiable in the future, but for now, it fails WP:GNG. Chris (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens. v/r - T P 15:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens men's ice hockey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens men's ice hockey

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

Non-notable club hockey team (not NCAA-affiliated as stated in the article) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 15:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: There's some gray area about the top club teams designated as varsity club by some schools, or ones at NAIA schools that operate with varisty status; and ones (like PSU) moving to the NCAA or what will be UAH moving from the NCAA to club are notable because they have proper sources. This article contains no sources and no factual info on the the Delaware ACHA program. Hopefully the creator is misinformed about all the NCAA info but the Delaware program is not currently an NCAA program, without sources stating they are moving to the NCAA, it is either pure speculation, an editing test, or a complete hoax. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable club team. Does not compete in the NCAA, or in Atlantic Hockey. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (reference) and redirect to Delaware Fightin' Blue Hens. The team exists, though evidently not at a D1 level. Reso lute 00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. If the Blue Hens page should include club teams in addition to varsity teams, then a re-direct is fine. If not, delete it. Non-notable, easily. Patken4 (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club level team. Redirect is fine by me if university team pages mention club level teams. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to institutions page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 14 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Good Spy Young[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable sources (ie. professional reviews). Danger ^{High voltage!} 15:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In July, 2010 the book was listed as a USA Today bestseller, see [26]. I found two good reviews: [27] (National Post, probably not a "professional review", but it was published by a notable newspaper), [28] (School Library Journal). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are really limited in scope, barely more than listings. Danger ^{High voltage!} 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. The book also placed second in the 2010 Goodreads Choice Award (section 'Young adult fiction') [29]. I don't think it is a totally unnotable book and in my opinion it would be better to keep the information. I admit that this is a borderline case.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found above. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - it has reliable reviews and it was on a bestseller list so it passes notability, but the plot section is waaaaaaaaay too long. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:03, 14 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudland[edit]

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

An unreferenced article about a Norwegian farm, incorporating a handy list of Danish kings from Gorm the Old onwards and not forgetting Svein Forkbeard and Valdemar the Victorious. No, I'm not making this up. Appears to be original research and has no discernable encyclopaedic value. Fails WP:OR, WP:RS andy (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. It's a nicely done tourist establishment with several references documenting how the tourist board intends it as a folk museum as well as a campsite, but the mentions of the farm itself in reference works are purely incidental so far as I can determine. The name is treated as a variant on names in Gaut- which are believed to refer to a river prone to flooding. There is one newspaper article about the farm itself reproduced on this page of its website, but it's about building an authentic modern building and the 15th-century precursor of building codes. I see nothing there about the farm itself being of special significance. I'll change to "keep" in a heartbeat if the creator or someone else can find coverage of an archaeological find on the site or any other historic distinction of the farm itself. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for complete lack of notability.Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - it's not yet ready for inclusion, but when it's finished as a camp under construction, perhaps it will be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wolfgang von Graben. Content to be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Wolfgang von Graben[edit]

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

This is one of those pointless genealogical trees of minor European nobility that appear on wikipedia from time to time. A vast and unencyclopaedic list of mostly non-notable people who have virtually nothing in common (e.g. a disease such as haemophilia, for example). Fails WP:NOTCATALOG andy (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not believe this passes WP:GNG. There is no assertion of notability in this article: only a small handful of the subjects even have articles themselves. – Richard BB 15:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge introductory paragraphs to Wolfgang von Graben, Delete the tree as non-notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wolfgang von Graben and prune as non-notable sections of the tree (i.e. most of them). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lotus Seven. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus Automobile[edit]

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

Small company, nothing wikipedia worthy. Not even mentioned in DE-wikipedia. In addition no references, no web site, no nothing. Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 15:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sad to say it, because I love Lotus 7 kit cars, but I cannot find anything noteworthy about this particular company. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lotus Seven, perhaps? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a small prargraph in Lotus Seven. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 14 November 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) Goodvac (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Exes[edit]

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

Non-notable section of alumni association. References are trivial and routine. TM 14:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the largest and best-known alumni associations anywhere; the sources already provided in the article are adequate to demonstrate notability, and extensive coverage is easily found at GNews and GBooks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have enough sources to indicate notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with reliable on-topic third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources seem to be sufficient to establish notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aequo (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Not many alumni associations are notable, but such a large, active group would be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 15:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Zagorová discography[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Artist (if notable at all) does not warrant such a list of works containing her songs; does not seem to be an individually notable discography. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the artist is notable, it's fine to have a disography article - in that case, it's a WP:FORK and we treat it as if it were part of the main article (excised for space and readability concerns, rather than for content). That said, however, this listing is much longer than the artist's article - hell, the table of contents is longer. Note also that the artist's article is under proposed deletion; if that article is deleted, this should be as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete artist of dubious notability doesn't need such a seperate list. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Austin Gary. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Madeira (Novel)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unremarkable self-published novel. Google search on "Miss Madeira" "Austin Gary" shows only 118 unique results, no significant coverage from reliable sources. Google news search on the same shows zero results. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Austin Gary. This book is not notable on its own. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect / merge to author page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Authour is notable, book is not. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:07, 14 November 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. Scanned copies of newspapers do verify that reliable sources exists and count toward proving notability v/r - T P 15:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potpisani[edit]

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

"Underground TV series" (what does this mean?). No reliable sources. The only references in article are some scanned pages from photobucket. See for example this reference, it is impossible to tell where this is published. The article should be deleted. В и к и T 13:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a lot of references: scanned pages from most popular newspapers in Serbia (Politika, Novosti, Glas javnosti), web pages of meny popular Serbian agencies, networks and film institutions (B92, Glas javnosti, Film Center of Serbia, Culture house of Campus...), official website of TV series "Potpisani" in English and in Serbian...This article should not be deleted.--Astreriks (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scanned pages are no reliable source, and there is no proof that those pages are from this newspapers. Also, it is possible that links to scanned pages are copyright violation, and those links should be removed.--В и к и T 10:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. В и к и T 13:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The serie appears notable; also not considering the article's references, there are a lot of available sources (via Google) searching for the name in cyrillic ("Потписани") which demonstrate that the series has received enough attention to support a claim of notability. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide at least one reliable source. I must draw your attention to the word "потписани". It is widely used word in the Serbian language and means "signed". So, if you are searching for the name in cyrillic ("Потписани"), you will get many results. I will now tell you what are the first results on google:
1. "Потписани" (article on serbian wikipedia which is proposed for deletion);
2. military of Serbia signed agreement with representatives of religious communities;
3. Signed agreements on co-financing of five environmental projects;
4. Signed agreements;
5. Signed contracts worth three million;
6. Signed Agreements about cooperation;
7. Signed Agreement on air and maritime transport with russia;
8. Signed contracts of employment;
9. Sarajevo:Signed Agreement on the Sava River bridge. Do you see any reliable source about this series?--В и к и T 21:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That`s not true. The first results on google are:

POTPISANI - 01 - Telefonska centrala 1/5 - YouTube (that`s about serie)
POTPISANI (www.indexovo.agitprop.rs/potpisan.htm)
Potpisani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (that`s about serie)
Корисник:Drozim/Потписани – Википедија (that`s about serie)
Potpisani sporazumi (Signed agreements)

Well, 3 of first 5 results are about serie Potpisani , everyone can see that here. And the title of serie in english is Undersigned, not Signed. If you search in Google this serie as Undersigned, you will get many results too. --Astreriks (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also to mention that all articles on other language wikipedias are written by the same user (User:Asteriks), so this can easily be crosswiki spam.
- bs wiki (revision history)
- da wiki (revision history)
- es wiki (revision history)
- fr wiki (revision history)
- hr wiki (revision history)
- it wiki (revision history)
- mk wiki (revision history)
- sl wiki (revision history)
- sh wiki (revision history)
- sv wiki (revision history)--В и к и T 10:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A low-budget/no-budget parody project whose 2 episodes were published on few really local televisions (Metropolis TV and Art TV -- "Art TV lost its license..., now it continues as a cable-only station") and minor projections. The "references" are either excerpts from TV schedules, or passing mentions, like this one [30] for "First review of independent off-films of Serbia". The most they had is this TV announcement for Art TV in Politika [31], which admits that "due to lack of funding and professional equipment, only two episodes were shot so far, but [the author] hopes...", and which I cannot find in Politika's archives. In my book, this is really sub-standard notability even for this type of project. No such user (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4 episodes (not 2) of this film series were published on two differnet televisions in several times on each televisions. "Art Tv" is really artistic TV station with special cultural and artistic standards and program, it`s not comercial TV station. Text in Politika, the newspaper with the greatest tradition in Serbia, and interview with autor of Potpisani was made 2009., and after that he shot 2 film episodes more. So, it`s not only hopes...it`s reality.--Astreriks (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are you aware about our policies about conflict of interest? I don't have a slightest doubt about your identity, as you're completely focused on articles about Marko Kovač. You seem to engage in blatant self-promotion. I wonder, how long did it took to scan and upload all those newspaper clips, such as about winning a this Samsung home theatre award. No such user (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it`s not true. I focused on articles about art, especially about film, about series, about TV programs...you can see that here...some of these articles are about art projects of my friends, colleagues and idols: Marko Kovac, Darko Bajic, Sergio Leone, David Zucker etc...--Astreriks (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) ; I'm not sure those are all about the series though Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not about series. Use google translate to see, but I already explained what is the meaning of the word in serbian.--В и к и T 10:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sources "Potpisani undersigned" [32] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astreriks (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sources "Potpisani" [33]
sources "Потписани" [34]
sources "Undersigned" [35]

--Astreriks (talk) 07:01, 15 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Radford[edit]

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

This seems like a vanity article. While it asserts some minor notability (6 books published, wrote for the Guardian), these books do not seem to be especially notable in themselves, having no notable sources discuss them, and a search of the Guardian website ([36],[37]) reveals no articles written by the subject. I believe the subject fails to meet notability guidelines; the subject is not the topic of multiple secondary published sources, and has no other assertions of notability. The main users working on the article was Jradfor1 (talk · contribs), which is - at the very least - suggestive of a conflict of interest, and an IP address which removed the proposed deletion tag and a host of templates highlighting issues with the article ([38]). fish&karate 13:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I haven't found anything that would suggest that Radford is notable enough for an article. He doesn't seem to really have anything that pushes him up enough to warrant an article. Just publishing books or writing for someone isn't an automatic ticket to notability, I'm afraid. There also aren't any articles written about him, nor are there really any big vanity/promotional pieces either. Most of the ghits bring back other people or links to pages where you can purchase the book. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Radford is an author who has written 6 books for The Crowood Press. On eof his books is the best selling book in its field. Please feel free to contact Ken Hathaway at The Crowood Press to confirm this. He was a staff writer for a while with Country Smallholding, and his articles written for the guardian were written a long time ago, over 15 years. He is more notible than many of the people who have articles on this site. Please define 'notible person.' I have seen pages on wikipedia for people who have failed at the first audition to shows such as the X factor. Are they considered notible as they have been on television. I have been on television, does this count? If this article is removed it will be a mistake and i will complain. A guide to dry stone walling sold so well it has been reprinted several times and a DVD companion has been made. Reviews of his books have appeared in magazines etc. Hence being talked about in other formes of media. However, if after all these arguments you are still not convinced that the author of 6 books, on the best in it's field, and a dvd companion is not a notible person, remove the article as I say your selection criteria is flaud. — 92.13.60.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:03, 8 November 2011‎ (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your time. jradfor1 (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2011 GMT — jradfor1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment: Putting out multiple books and a DVD does not automatically give you notability. You have to prove through multiple independent and reliable sources that Radford is a notable author in his field. Being on television doesn't guarantee notability either. There are plenty of people who have been in or made shows that do not meet notability guidelines. You have to prove that he's a bestseller through links that are not put out by the author, his company, or any sort of promotional or vanity links. Even then, being a bestseller doesn't usually guarantee you notability unless it's in a high profile venue such as the NYT Bestseller list. As far as other articles go, odds are that those articles don't warrant an entry on here and if you see any articles that you don't think passes notability guidelines, please feel free to put those up for deletion or bring them to the attention of someone who frequently participates in discussions. Saying "that stuff exists" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) means that Radford deserves an article is not a valid argument. As far as defining notability goes, please check out WP:GNG,WP:BIO, and WP:AUTHOR. They provide an excellent definition of what passes notability guidelines. Please understand that none of this is done to be hostile or ugly, this is just the way wikipedia works. Radford might seem notable to you as an individual (especially if you are closely involved with him or are the author himself), but that doesn't mean that he's notable as far as Wikipedia goes. Believe me, there's a lot of people I think should be on here that don't qualify under notability guidelines but that's just how the system here works and I have to go along with it. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party independent coverage.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:21, 14 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Cohen (public relations)[edit]

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

NN person, possibly created by COI editor. Syrthiss (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable/transparently self-promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser100 (talk • contribs)
Delete fails WP:GNG and suspect WP:COI. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 02:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Potts[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football yet. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 12:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 12:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. As such, this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Auburn University people. v/r - T P 02:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn Alumni Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE. Every school has an alumni association and this one does not demonstrate any increased notability. TM 12:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Auburn University or List of Auburn University people (a paragraph or so). As noted above, an alumni association like thousands of others with no demonstrated, significant coverage treating the organization in depth in third-party sources. Neutrality^talk 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 02:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshyd D. F. Lam[edit]

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

The article fails to address WP:BIO. The four citations in the article at the time of this nomination appear to be mirrors (or at least re-cycled versions of a promotional article) using close paraphrasing of each other, a particular give away is http://shrutijain.co.in/category/the-taj-mahal-palacemumbai which includes "citation needed" in the text. There seems little prospect of finding sufficient impact on the historic record in the near future using reliable sources that are not limited to tangential mentions in what amount to tourist commercials for the hotels. Fæ (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is true. There are references on wikipedia which is fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHCLFAN (talk • contribs) 10:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — IHCLFAN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete unless much better sources can be provided which attest to notability and impact. At the moment it does not pass WP:BIO. I had originally used a ((Blp prod)) on this article as all I could find anywhere were mirrors of Wikipedia. But the IP 27.4.131.198 repeatedly removed it. It also violated Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons as it contains much personal information about the subject and his family with no supporting references at all. I've deleted all unsourced personal information involving third parties, i.e. his relatives. IHCLFAN, please do not restore it without providing reliable published sources for the names of his brothers, wife and children. Voceditenore (talk) 11:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable, no sources... Very poorly written too. "He was the key person to the set up The Taj Bengal Hotel project in Kolkota"... What does that even mean? Themanfromscene24 (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor writing isn't a reason to delete an article, just a reason to fix it. But in this case, the lack of significant coverage and indeed anything which verifies the biographical information is a big problem. By the way, Kolkota is the modern name for Calcutta. Voceditenore (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 02:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Celestial Hierachy[edit]

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

Contested speedy deletion. Had been redirected as an apparent copy-paste of existing article, Christian angelic hierarchy but was reverted. Nominated under A10 due to there being an existing article and due to author's admission of copying from that article. Again reverted, possibly by page creator. In summary, the article is a mix of existing articles, primarily Christian angelic hierarchy but also articles on the inner planets of our system and on earth's atmosphere. Such a combination suggests original research (and not very good research, either, considering the confusion between biosphere and atmosphere). The existing article may have room for expansion or even splitting, but there is no need for a separate article such as this. Claret Ash 10:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination as content fork. I suspect that the contributor is actually interested in writing about planetary angels, which would in fact be a worthwhile potential subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I regard this as WP:OR. Allusions to the subject in the Bible are scanty. This means that the subject must inevitably be controversial. It contains several citations from the Bible, and one of a concordance. Apart from that there is one website cited. This subject must have been the subject of considerable academic debate among theologians, and I have no doubt that there are a range of differing views on it. If such an article were to exist, it ought to be discussing the views of those theologians, not merely putting forward a single view, as if this was the only one possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork of Christian angelic hierarchy, with WP:OR about astronomy and the atmosphere added. -- 202.124.75.157 (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This, despite its title, is a weird conflation of the pseudo-Dionysian (Christian) angelic hierarchy with the "seven firmaments" and angelic hierarchy found in some strands of Jewish mysticism. As such, it certainly violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; the unattributed copyvio of other Wikipedia articles is just icing on the cake. Deor (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I've yet to see a convincing argument that this article (at this title) is in any way different than the existing articles. If the author wanted to draft a major update to existing articles, or to propose a move of one article to this title, then they need to go elsewhere - this isn't how to do it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:13, 9 November 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 (closing as G3). Hoax - no need to let this sit on the wiki for all seven days. Many thanks to the nominator for catching this one. Neutrality^talk 04:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Tower[edit]

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

This is either a hoax, or refers to a fictional building of no apparent notability. Either way, it does not appear to be verifiable. Beloved Freak 10:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. No trace of this building, its city or its state found outside the Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a bizarre hoax - in fact, you could make a game out of counting the number of clues that it's a hoax. Delete anyway. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - location does not exist [39] Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:05, 7 November 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. I'm declining the redirect proposal. That would appear to be subversive advertising to me. v/r - T P 02:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jetphotos.net[edit]

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

The article relies almost exclusively on self published sources, and what information is here is of the promotional nature. There are a couple of indepedent sources, but these are not on the actual website, but rather are written on aircraft spotting and/or aviation photography. There is a lack of independent, third-party sources which discuss this website in great details -- and those that do mention it, do so in passing. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate your comments, we should also look at Airliners.net article in this case which is a similar website, however has absolutely no independent citations whatsoever regarding the website in the article.

In the case of Jetphotos.net article, there are at least credible mentions of the website in other articles.

Either both articles should stay, or both articles should be deleted. There should not be an article for one without the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelmg (talk • contribs) 10:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia does not work that way. Every article is considered on its own merits; the existiance or non-existiance of any other article is absolutely irrelevant to an AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in the event that the AfD closes with a delete decision, I would request that a redirect be kept and directed towards aviation photography. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 14 November 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. and salt; if it becomes notable in the future, ask me for unsalting. when there are good 3rd party RS references to it. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Foreign Relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article fails to address WP:WEB. A quick check of the articles about contributors shows most of these to be problematic in terms of notability, though Richard Falk would seem to have a good case. However this confuses the notability of contributing authors with the notability of this news portal and no evidence has been provided apart from inherited notability. This is the third AfD within 2 weeks and the article has been created five times, should it fail AfD I recommend salting until such a time as a draft article is seen to unambiguously address these issues. Fæ (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I don't see any reason to go through an AfD all over again. The second AfD gave a clear consensus and the two re-creations have exactly been that: no addition of new sources, no new evidence of notability. Still fails WP:WEB, WP:NJournals, and WP:GNG. Salting indeed seems appropriate. --Crusio (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello....I've added several external links to demonstrate that the Journal of Foreign Relations is considered a notable website, and as well a notable entry. What links shall I add additionally? There must be a way to address your concerns with the entry versus just deleting it. Johnllyman (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Johnllyman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. It's been added and deleted twice, the second time being just late last month. Third time is usually not a charm in these instances. I notice that you submitted this to AfC but didn't really wait for it to be approved before posting an article. I highly recommend that if this is deleted a third time, you focus all your efforts on perfecting your AfC entry because it'll save everyone (including yourself) a lot of time and trouble. The reasoning behind this is that you can continuously work on your AfC and it won't be subjected to many different AfD threads and it won't be seen as spamming or overly self promotional. (Not saying you are, but you've got to be careful of this stuff.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  - Minor clarification, if you check the log you can see this article has been deleted four times. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Four times? Yikes. My vote is now to "Delete and salt".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Speedy delete and SALT - This is a strong case of "I didn't hear that!" John Lyman actions here are solely to promote himself and his journal, he is a run of the mill SPA and spammer and should be blocked as such. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT. This is one person repeatedly adding articles after having them deleted and apparently not doing any real improvements to the articles along the lines of what is necessary to prove notability. I also recommend potentially blocking the article creator since it's unlikely he'll stop adding them back in until he's been blocked. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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. v/r - T P 01:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keppel MRT Station[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Station does not exist in any form. Article subjected to the same reasons as the first nomination back in 2006. Seloloving (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely lacking sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 14 November 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. Non-admin close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subbaiah Natarajan[edit]

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

BLP-PROD, WP:NPOV, and maybe also A7 ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No "maybe" about it; clearly in violation of A7, and tagged accordingly. Yunshui 雲水 08:33, 7 November 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. v/r - T P 01:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JAG (franchise)[edit]

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

This article appears to be original research as I can find no reliable sources that verify NCIS to be part of a "Jag" franchise (Though a few unreliable blogs, forum posts, etc do discuss it as such.) While there are many reliable sources that discuss NCIS as a franchise - most of the material relating to that would be better placed within NCIS (TV series) unless there are further spinoffs in the future that would warrant the material being spun out from that article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete NCIS actually rose out of JAG in the first place as a backdoor pilot in the last season of JAG (specifically the episode Ice Queen (JAG)). Surely this can be sourced somehow, but in this form right now it's not made very clear at all in a morass of bulletpoints, statistics and grid lists. The history in the JAG and NCIS articles actually describe this better than this article right now. Nate • (chatter) 07:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would contest that a backdoor pilot alone does not make the spinoff part of the same franchise - For example would you consider Mork and Mindy to be part of a Love, American Style franchise? The former being backdoor piloted in Happy Days which was it's self backdoor piloted in the latter. Even searching for sources that consider Mork and Mindy to be part of a "Happy Days Franchise" returns only 8 hits all of which are unreliable, and it's the same here when searching for sources that consider NCIS to be part of a JAG franchise. Yes it started there, but it shares no title similarity, there is no main cast continuity (unlike NCIS & NCIS:LA which share both), there is no similarity in the genre of show, The only franchise I see here is the NCIS one and reliable sources seem to favour that position. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. Links between the series can be discussed in the series themselves. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 01:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Shakespeare's plays – Oxfordian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet another spinoff page trying to promote a fringe theory. Wikipedia's purpose is to document these theories, not to promote them; if the sources for this "chronology" are the promoters of the fringe theory themselves, it doesn't need its own article - probably does not even merit a mention in the main Oxfordian theory article. It also appears to be largely synthetic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was previously nominated for deletion and failed. Since that time the article has been improved even more, with some 60 edits, the majority of which were made to support the mainstream position such as this one [40], and this [41] that added more mainstream RS references. Even this minor edit[42] is an example of editing to address NPOV. As a result of these and scores of other edits, WP:DUE has been even further addressed, as has WP:SYNTH (compare with Chronology of Shakespeare's plays and List of Shakespeare authorship candidates in regards to identical synth issues). The article is far stronger and more in line with policies and guidelines than when it faced, and survived, its first AFD. It should be kept, and improved even further.Smatprt (talk) 07:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main article explains that there is no definitive or authoritative chronology. The topic seems to be notable - see Contested Will for some interesting commentary. Warden (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - article is well referenced, and plainly states where doubt exists, so it is not NPOV, nor giving undue weight (plenty of other WP articles on Shakespeare, too). Theory is notable in itself as the citations show. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC) See below.Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment. Perhaps you are unaware that almost all the references fail WP:RS. Ogburn's book is even given the wrong title. There is a book called "The Mystery of William Shakespeare", but it's not by Ogburn. I don't know what you mean by "plainly states where doubt exists". This whole chronology is considered nonsense by almost all specialists, so doubt - indeed outright disbelief - exists everywhere. The theory is notable, but this article is inherently POV because it only gives the "Oxfordian" POV, apart from some brief disclaimers and a highly POV portrayal of disagreements within the "mainstream". The article on the theory exists, and gives context with mainstream views. Paul B (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no real information except for the Simonton study, which proves it's all fantasy. There is no "Oxfordian chronology" [43] [44], there are only Oxfordians speculating, and this article is a promotional venue to raise the awareness of a fringe theory to the members of the lay public because their strategy is one of using Wikipedia for promotion, not scholarship. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tom is correct that there is no such thing as an Oxfordian chronology, apart from the bare fact that the plays have to have been written before 1604, when Oxford died. Any argument that can be used for any particular play can be either be invented or culled from mainstream speculations about dating. Apart for that, there is no "Oxfordian chronology", because there is no methodology or consensus. The founder of the movement believed that Oxford did not even write The Tempest. Other plays are assigned by different writers to any number of dates in Oxford's life. Once you give up on the standard methodology which identifies an unfolding stylistic development linked to wider theatrical trends and events, then essentially you can put plays anywhere, in any order, depending on what aspects of Oxford's life you want to link them to. There is no particular reason why Ogburn junior's views are presented alongside a couple of other writers, but Ogburn senior is not, nor are Allen, Barrell, Ward, and a host of other writers who are arbitrarily ignored. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, but wouldn't that be a reason for improving the article with the views of Allen, Barrell, Ward et al, rather than deleting it? Even if the Oxfordian theory is totally wrong, it seems to be notable as documented - remember we're talking about what is written about Shakespeare here, not the ultimate and inaccessible truth about what 'really' happened. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So since the article is nonsense, add more nonsense to improve it? Seems legit. Probably should go ahead and add the chronology for the Sir Thomas More case while we're at it.

Seriously, though, the editors who should be the most concerned about improving it and who should be the best acquainted with the topic are not interested in improving the article beyond promoting Oxford. A review of the editing histories of this and other SAQ-related pages makes that very clear. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Tom says, this would simply mean adding more utter nonsense. Here's an example: Mr and Mrs Ogburn senior in their book This Star of England claim that Othello was "revised" by Oxford in the run-up to the 1588 Armada invasion! He'd apparently written Othello some time earlier, but the revised version "when presented to the public, did far more toward defeating Philip than any man's martial service would have done: for it helped to arouse the English fighting spirit, without which even the great Francis Drake might not have been able to combat the might of Spain." (p522) Even if Othello had been produced around 1588, for which, of course, there is no evidence, this would be a preposterous claim, but the notion that the play was written before 1588 is so far beyond rational literary history that it's impossible to discuss meaningfully. That's just one example, though. If you were to include all these speculations you'd end up with a meaningless jumble of dates for all the plays. That's because there is no coherent methodology. These is no "oxordian chronology". Paul B (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm beginning to think that if not WP:Patent Nonsense then at least WP:Utter B******s (o.n.o.) may apply to the Oxfordian theory. I've struck out my 'Keep' above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you were right the first time - we should be "improving the article with the views of Allen, Barrell, Ward". And remember, Ogburn and Anderson, et al, have been published by independent third-party publishers with reputations for fact checking, which is the threshold for RS. There are plenty of ways to improve this article, which, by the way, has had very few specific complaints until now. In fact, both fringe and mainstream editors have both contributed to it with a minimum of controversy.Smatprt (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ogburn and Anderson, et al, are fringe promoters and as such are not independent and reliable, which is the threshold for fringe theory articles such as this one. Regardless, the threshold for a separate article is notability, which is a basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." This article fails that test, as well as WP:NOTADVOCATE. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Laying out a cross-chronology--comparing the conventional timeline with that of the authorship candidates life (personal and artistic), at the current level of understanding--is helpful/necessary for supporting/understanding any Shakespeare authorship candidate's argument. It shows that Oxford actually had dramatic works under his own name, and that not all works assigned to the Shakespeare canon are regarded by all as part of the whole. Any weaknesses in the article can (and should) be addressed. With advances in understanding and knowledge will come enhancements to this article, and its usefulness/importance will grow in turn. Artaxerxes (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Oxford wrote dramatic works under his own name is already covered in his own article and is completely irrelevant to this timeline. The fact that "not all works assigned to the Shakespeare canon are regarded by all as part of the whole" has absolutely nothing to do with this topic either. It's covered in several articles: Shakespeare's collaborations, Shakespeare attribution studies, Shakespeare Apocrypha. Again, this has nothing to do with the chronology and there is no "current level of understanding". Paul B (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the information in this article is not duplicated in the bio article on Oxford, and is not duplicated in the article on the Oxfordian theory. There is a lot of talk about duplication and I want to be clear about this part of that conversation.Smatprt (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is all this duplication talk you speak of? Whether the information is available elsewhere on WP is irrelevant; all kinds of useless information cannot be found on WP. I have yet to see an article on the many uses of baling wire, but nobody is claiming that an article like that should be written. If it were it would have the virtue of at least being useful and relevant to the real world. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that there are theories, fringey as they may be, does not mean that there is a chronology. WP should not present original research of fringe theory; keeping this article presupposes that the supposed alternative chronology exists, that a chronology is agreed on by reliable sources or that a consensus is reached by non-reliable sources. WP cannot pretend such an agreement exists, and keeping the article upholds that fiction. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. There is disagreement over the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, and there is disagreement over the Oxfordian version being discussed here. Both articles present competing viewpoints (although the main Shakespeare chronology disregards most early scholarship on the matter and some notable dissenting viewpoints). In this case, just because there is no wide-spread agreement is no reason to delete the article. Also, there is plenty of information in this article that is NOT repeated in any other article. Comments to the contrary are incorrect on this. The repeated information is there so that NPOV is addressed and readers are clearly aware what the mainstream position is (the repeated bits) and what the minority viewpoint is (the non-repeated bits). As a WP:Fringe topic, views of the adherents are allowed, as long as they are published by independent mainstream publishers etc. That is precisely the case here with Ogburn and Anderson, for example. Smatprt (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The scholarly debate over the dating of Shakespeare's plays has the same relation to the Oxfordian chronology as historical revisionism has to historical denial. One is a legitimate scholarly pursuit, the other is a simulacrum of scholasticism in service to a fringe theory. Ogburn and Anderson are not independent reliable sources and are not to be conflated with independent mainstream publishers. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reinterpret my words. I said that Ogburn and Anderson are "published by independent mainstream publishers". Of course "they" are not independent - anymore than James Shapiro or Alan Nelson are. They all have a car in this race. RS, when it comes to published material, is about the publisher. Are they independent, third-party publishers with a reputation for fact checking. I would say that Penguin and Bantam Books are both well known independent publishers!Smatprt (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reliance on the publisher as a determinant of what constitutes a reliable source is misplaced and misleading. WP:RS states that "The word 'source' as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability." As adherents and promoters of a fringe theory, the works of Ogburn and Anderson disqualify them as reliable sources for this article. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The complete chronology of the Shakespeare oeuvre, including Chronology of Shakespeare's plays, is sheer speculation -- ongoing speculation -- and there is no incontrovertible evidence for the various chronologies propounded by various scholars; nor does any manuscript exist of any Shakepeare play. We know the date of publication of the compilation which is called the First Folio, which was published 7 years after Will Shaksper of Stratford was dead. We don't know much else except a few contemporary reports of a handful of performances. Therefore, any light shed on the matter is valuable; there is no faulting it for being speculation because all Shakespeare chronologies are by definition speculation. This article offers a chronology which in fact may be as or more logical than many speculations, and offers information valuable to those researching the topic. To delete the article would in my mind be censoring Wikipedia. Since the Chronology of Shakespeare's plays states in the lead that it is only one possible chronology, one or more alternative chronologies, with concommitant reasoning and sources, should be acceptible on Wikipedia as well. Softlavender (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, seriously? "Keep because I am an antiStratfordian"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Public Record Office documents in minute detail expenditures for perfornances at court, establishing a significant if partial choronology for the plays whether you believe that Oxford or Shakespeare — or Marlowe — wrote them. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article Chronology of Shakespeare's plays is devoted to what is known about the chronology, according to reliable sources. Any suitably sourced information should be in that article, and there is no need to have a parallel article (WP:POVFORK) giving the situation according to a fringe theory. There is no "Oxfordian" scholarly tradition—the term simply refers to a vague grouping of people who maintain that Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare: a variety of reasoning is used, with a variety of differing conclusions, so no source can satisfactorily define an "Oxfordian chronology". Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a fork to promote a splinter theory. There are of course multiple reliable sources for the chronology, and they are in the main article. Claims that it amounts to "sheer speculation" confuses speculation with hypotheses based on some evidence -- though normally, less than complete security. The statement that there is nothing earlier than the first folio is simply false; there were editions of many of the plays published during his lifetime--indeed his active career. There is only one possible chronology in fact, and literary historians try to approximate it on the basis of evidence. There are not parallel universes in which different people wrote the plays. Censorship has of course nothing to do with it, and amounts to saying "you can't say these views are not important because that is censoring the expression of them". Of course we can and do say the relative importance of different views, and in topics where there is fringe work, we follow the scholarly consensus. The Oxfordian hypothesis is covered without there being multiple articles on it. The relevant policies are FRINGE and RS. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The proposer of this deletion and everyone above endorsing it, make compelling cases for deleting this. This is nothing more than some folks in the real world messing with the scholars of the Bard's works. Wikipedia should not be used as a platform backing such things up. This theory deserves only modest coverage in the main articles on Shakespeare, and only coverage that is properly sourced. One of the pages around here said that The New York Times ran a poll that determined that a very high proportion of scholars viewed this as nonsense, and as just a huge waste of time. I'm surprised that this scale of time-wastage is tolerated, here. Alarbus (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on my Keep, above: The related policies and guidelines that were followed in the evolvement of this article are:

Addressing the issue of merge or delete - This article is an extended version of this section[45] in Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, an article which has already been split due to WP:LENGTH and WP:SIZERULE. If this article were deleted, the material would be merged into that parent article, which is already at 65kb and growing (current editors have announced intentions to add more mainstream rebuttals to the article). Besides, this article, at over 20kb, but needing work (add'l space), is notable on its own right (see 4th bullet).
Based on WP:SUM, the summary of this article is at the parent article [[46]];
In order to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the lead clearly states the mainstream position in no uncertain terms, Also, please note the weight of the mainstream position in this overview section [[47], which was included in order to avoid any POV fork issues. Also the lead clearly states Mainstream Shakespearean scholars, Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza[48], Dean Keith Simonton and Sidney Thomas, who are quoted or referenced in criticizing the Oxfordian View. Finally, in furtherance of NPOV goals, the links to 2 mainstream websites which are severely critical of the Oxfordian Theory and th Oxfordian Chronology are also included in the article.
Finally, in terms of WP:NOTABLE, this specific issue (Oxfordian Chronology) is discussed in RS sources including those by mainstream Shakespearean scholars James Shapiro, Ward Elliott and Robert Valenza[49] and Dean Kieth Simonton[50], by mainsream authorship debunker David Kathman [51], and by RS mainstream news sources including the New York Times [52], and Atlantic Monthly [53], among others. Smatprt (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are not two parallel universes with Chronology of Shakespeare's plays valid in one, and a different reality—the Oxfordian reality—in the other. Wikipedia has a name for a situation where an article is written to present the fringe view: it is a POV fork and is "inconsistent with Wikipedia policies". Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:FRINGE. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:01, 14 November 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. JIP | Talk 06:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROJECT ON SECURED DATA TRANSMISSION[edit]

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

"New article name goes here is a useful guide..." Enough said. →Σ τ c. 05:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 05:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking this as speedy delete for some patent nonsense, personal essay... みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is partly a copyright violation (see: [54]) and partly a personal essay. Clearly inappropriate as a Wikipedia article. Sparthorse (talk) 06:00, 7 November 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. v/r - T P 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flow Corporation[edit]

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

Non-notable start-up. One video with some surface coverage and a blog does not notability make. Googling appears to have nothing about this Flow Corp (but lots on several others with similar names). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as was done before under G11. Eeekster (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability isn't documented. Coverage is weak. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric D. Alterman. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Article is about a technology startup that has created the world’s first real-time data exchange, a platform for application developers, enterprises and consumers that enhances real-time data sharing, content curation and on-demand stream processing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability isn't documented. Recently added ref looks good at first, but the screenshots show a username implying they were taken by the company founder rather than an independent source. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:35, 10 November 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 deletion under CSD A1. - Vianello (Talk) 08:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Color of Ash Ketchum[edit]

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

Article about the colors of the clothes worn by a Pokemon character. Not enough here to warrant a separate article. No reliable sources so nothing here is verifiable and certainly no evidence to show how this subject is notable. Not work a redirect or merge, since this is an unlikely search term and there is nothing sourced here to merge. Prod was removed without comment, so moving here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability outside the fiction. Wikipedia is not a Pokémon fansite. JIP | Talk 05:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Cruft Joefridayquaker (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Unencyclopaedic level of detail. Does not contain any information that could not be better conveyed by an image of Ash Ketchum. No reason why the content, if deemed of value, could not be adequately covered in the existing Pokemon articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting speedy delete under A1. みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't even explain what relevance this information might have within the Pokemon universe, much less here in the real world. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 7 November 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. v/r - T P 01:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Pike[edit]

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

Hardly a notable character. Footnotes all lead to abc.com empty of content not germane to the subject. Wlmg (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough to be merged into List of All My Children characters. Also, I don't know and am not an expert of this character at all, and I have not watched soap operas ever since the early 2000s. The Wikipedians, the general media, the entertainment news industry, and others have not known or not been interested with this fictional character at all. Wikipedia is not a substitute for websites that dedicate to specific subjects, such as soap operas. Any soap opera expert should know this character, especially after the show was pulled away from television; unfortunately, the article's lack of improvement and absence of realistic perspective may indicate lack of interests from soap dedicators. --Gh87 (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. I've marked 3 of 4 links as link dead. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - non-notable soap opera character. Should be merged to the List of All My Children characters page. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:55, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 01:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Infotech[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Lack of coverage in reliable, neutral, published sources Ravi _{My Tea Kadai} 04:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Themanfromscene24 (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. --WorLD8115 (TalK) 12:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 01:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Surveillance[edit]

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

This is a term recently coined by the article creator and his collaborators. There is no indication provided that this meaning of "anonymous surveillance" is widely used outside of that team's research papers. Pichpich (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be promoting someone's "emerging" method: a new emerging framework for video surveillance which respects the users' privacy while still providing safety and security. It is an enhancement over existing privacy protection methods that only focus on hiding faces in the video; which was found unreliable in recent research - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added some external links. Biscuittin (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't really added any links. You've formatted the existing links properly and those links are to that academic's research papers. I'm not disputing the existence of that work but I am challenging its importance outside his research group. Pichpich (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely non-notable academic research. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not establish notability. Could not establish notability with my own research. --Kvng (talk) 16:49, 14 November 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. I have referred the article's creator to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rare earth soils and what are they and what are they used for[edit]

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

This is simply a question asked by a person seeking to learn about rare earth soils. Totally doesn't belong here. Magister Scienta ^talk (7 November 2011) 03:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this isn't an article, its a question. Should be speedy deleted and the author direct to the help desk. Sparthorse (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Athlete. v/r - T P 01:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afflete[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism with no indication of notability. Eeekster (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Athlete as a borderline case of "plausible typos". →Σ τ c. 03:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Ali G might spell it that way, but very few real people would. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable, searching the web shows this isn't being used anywhere, so probably something made up. Redirect is possible, but I think so borderline that just deleting is a better outcome. Sparthorse (talk) 03:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eeekster and Sparthorse. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't so much an article about a neologism as it is an unpersuasive argument that Wikipedia should have an article about this. No, we shouldn't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Σ. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. A google-search returns no indication that it is widely used in the context mentioned in the article. Instead the search results are quite worrisome and a significant number of them appear to contain offensive and/or racist language, but absolutely nothing to verify the statements in the article. --Phileasson (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding reliable sources to qualify topic inclusion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; an idiom that is derived from the the words "affiliate" & "athlete" and refers specifically to describing an Affiliate Athlete; an individual with a strong all around 'affletic' ability that indicates the potential to succeed and multiple affiliate marketing positions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Miskwito (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, but recreate as a redirect, also as above. (is that a valid position to take?) Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 14 November 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. But I will note that it is entirely proper to open a new AFD for an article that was coupled with another article in an AFD that closed as no consensus. v/r - T P 17:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Ashland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Discussion #1 closed as no consensus, in part because it was coupled with an article that was deemed to be of differing quality than it. I'm decoupling Ashland from Eugene, and renominating, on the basis that no consensus can mean push to a new AFD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the original deletion rationale was:

WP:NOTNEWS, there is nothing notable about this compared to the hundereds of other "Occupy" protest. If it doesn't have national or at least regional news and only has local news, it isn't notable enough for a page.

And the original closing rationale was:

There does appear to be a consensus to keep these, but there's also a number of comments that mention redirecting and merging, apart from the delete votes. Given this and the fact these two probably shouldn't have been bundled together, closing as No Consensus

Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of Occupy Ashland's facebook page, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Speedy close. You nominated this again less than two hours after the previous discussion closed. Why would you possibly think that renominating was a good idea? WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED is not a strategy that it's recommended we should use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was perfectly appropriate to renominate it. Did you even bother to read my rationale? For starters, the guideline you cite applies almost exclusively to articles where the outcome was "keep". It is perfectly acceptable to renominate something that is closed as no consensus; loads of AFDs with no consensus are just automatically relisted for another week. In fact, a close read of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED would note that your Speedy Keep looks surprisingly like the "Article survived previous AFD and should not have to be subjected to this rubbish again" that is suggested be avoided in the guideline you cite. This would suggest that it is you who is violating said guideline. Furthermore, most of the reason that the 1st nomination was closed was on procedural grounds that requested that Ashland be decoupled from Eugene, which was also nominated in the first AFD. So this is really a much different AFD than previously. And finally, I left a note to the original closer asking if what I did was right, and he hasn't said that it was wrong yet Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Highly annoying reopening of this, given the AP wire report of Occupy Ashland which emerged between the time the first challenge was made and the time it was closed. I've spent lots of time saying the same thing again and again: one more time. It is not yet time to decide what is free-standing, what needs to be merged, and what might be deleted on any of these Occupy things. Chopping now risks losing info in the event that things need to be recreated. There is clear evidence that the Occupy pieces are newsworthy in their major urban incarnations and will be — at a minimum — the object of state-level mergers into combined articles beyond that. Is Occupy Ashland a free-standing KEEP or a merge target into a still-uncreated article? It is too early to tell. What is painfully obvious already is that this is not something which should be deleted outright. I've cited publication and page for the wire report in the previous, just-closed nomination. Now please, can we just avert our eyes from these Occupy pieces and trust that it will all work out for the best in the end? Carrite (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly annoying"? Can you point to how reopening a discussion that was closed as no consensus violates policy in any way? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't allege any violation of policy; certainly it is WITHIN POLICY to open up a "no consensus" article for reexamination. However, it is completely tone deaf to rush to do so in this case and that is really ANNOYING. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reliable sources the topic passes WP:GNG, including, but not limited to:

"Occupy Ashland: Day Two." KOBI 5 NBC Affiliate.
Holmes, Sarah (October 20, 2011). "Occupy Ashland protests continue as supporters rally in Medford." The Siskiyou.
Barnard, Jeff (October 27, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street goes micro in small town." (Sourced from the Associated Press.) Deseret News.
Associated Press. (October 27, 2011). "Small Oregon Towns Join Occupy Movement." Oregon Public Broadcasting News.
Associated Press (November 2, 2011)."Occupy roundup: Ashland group votes to cut back; Occupy Seattle march on Chase CEO." The Oregonian.

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: that's 1 — 2 — 3 — 4 — 5 substantial independent published sources... We're done. Let it snow. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you can't call SNOW until it's like 8-1. And now it's only 4-2, as someone below has voted merge Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Really? Two hours later... --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, it's perfectly acceptable to renominate something that was closed as no consensus at any time Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again. It has coverage. Dream Focus 15:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's no content here (just three sentences, two of which are problematic) with little prospect for changing this on this transient local news event. This should be a sentence or two in an article with broader scope or a list article. "Not news" is certainly a wiki-way to say this. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—Maybe this should have been taken to DRV instead of reopening. Not because reopening is against policy, obviously it's not, but because this is just going to force everyone who participated in the last deletion discussion to repeat their arguments here (I didn't participate in it). I was reading over the previous discussion in preparation for commenting here, and it occurred to me that a close of "no consensus" is different from a relisting. Closing as no consensus maybe says that the closing admin thinks that no consensus is going to be reached, whereas relisting says that a consensus might still be reached. If the nominator thinks that a consensus can be reached now when it couldn't before, that's essentially saying that the first AFD was improperly closed, and so this should be at deletion review, not here again.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I'm throwing in the towel, as I can see that this nomination is not going anywhere, and that continuing it would waste more community time and tarnish my reputation Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:02, 7 November 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. v/r - T P 01:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lizzi[edit]

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

A musician. Has done two singles. Creator of a social networking website [www.fanflux.com]. Unable to find any reliable references for either Mr. Lizzi or fanflux. Fails both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG Bgwhite (talk) 05:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have provided a number of independent media sources about his notability. He has been part of many musical productions. I have named artists he has worked with that are very notable. As to him having just two singles, he started releasing independent materials in late 2010. This doesn't mean that he was inactive prior to that. werldwayd (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a youtube link, two blogs and a partial interview as references. As I stated in the nomination, unable to find reliable references. Bgwhite (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After the nomination for deletion and your comments, I have now added some more references about Lizzi and his notability. werldwayd (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Just meets" WP:GNG, I feel it has extreeme salvagebility. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. 2nd relist as this is a BLP and the sources are very flimsy IMO. Thanks, Black Kite (t) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article seems to have three possible sources of notability:

Founder of fanflux.com - The only ref provided is a link to the site. "Fanflux" nets zero Gnews hits. General Ghits are primary, social media sites, or trivial.
Modeling career - References offered are an indeterminate blog with a couple of vids and pics, a blog that "was created by Marie-Ève Côté in 2010 to enable existing artist and new artists to get noticed" containing what appears to be a straight reprint of his press sheet and a link to a youtube video plus another link to the same blog, this time of a picture of subject in a t-shirt; and there's a primary link to an apparently non-notable modeling agency, saying that they're working with him. Gnews and Ghits in general offer nothing better to evidence notability.
Music career - Article provides a couple of refs: this profile for a site covering the Anjou and Mercier neighborhoods of Montreal, his hometown (he's an Anjou lad). The article is a recap of who he is and then a brief section, literally entitled (in English translation) "A promising future". An interview on what appears to be PR site of some sort--certainly nothing WP:RS. An artist-provided artist profile on a Japanese music festival site. A bio on a marketing site that is "much more than a web media site. It’s a venue where artists both locally and internationally will turn to launch their careers." And lastly, he's on staff at some sort of high school battle-of-the-bands presenting organization. Unreferenced in the article but apparently solid is his connection with Karl Wolf, as he is credited as drummer on one of the latter's albums. Gnews and Geverything searches don't find anything better, for notability purposes.

The article and the available sources paint a picture of a young, energetic, attractive working musician who has not yet achieved encyclopedia-level notability on musical or broader WP:ENT grounds. He may yet do so, in which case a WP article will be welcome. But solidly fails WP:GNG for right now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability, just passing references. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 01:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karen A. Selz[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting strategy of trying to cite a book she wrote on Amazon... Clearly not notable. Themanfromscene24 (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲水 08:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasoning above. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep - Karen A. Selz is a pioneer in the applications of the ergodic (measure) theory of dynamical systems to brain processes with publication in front line journals since 1989-1990. Representative examples are well referenced on the page being discussed for deletion. She has also applied these strategies to develop algorithmic schemes for neuropeptide design and currently holds 95 patents on each of unique, brain active peptides. The major articles in this research program are well referenced on the page being discussed. She is frequently an invited participant in edited books in her field and meeting presentations. She has organized and for 15 years directed the activities of Cielo Institute (www.cieloinstitute.org)involving a wide variety of participating scientists working in several fields. She recently demonstrated for the first time (PLos Computational Biology, 2011) that human neurtraphils (white cells) demonstrated measure supported first order phase transitions in "shape."

I am confused that so little specifically relevant issues are not understood or discussed by the "deleters". Is this the "wikipedian" uninformed authoritarianism that I have been recently hearing about?? Don't the "deleters" spend anytime really researching the literature relevant to the person being considered? She has been on the frontier of the new biological sciences involving nonlinear dynamical systems for almost 25 years. She developed an entirely new way to design functional peptides for the brain. Her current project in human single cell behavior creates a "single cell mathematical behavior" area which she is currently working in. This is a great and productive American woman scientist.

Her "novelistic" work is a hobby and shouldn't be held against her. Who ever it was that thought her whole remarkable career was a cheap trick to advertise one of these hobby books should be significantly chagrined.It was both uninformed and insulting. These arguements are supported by the list of top journal references included on the page being considered for deletion. Look at the institute she created, www.cieloinstitute.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmandell (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Ajmandell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To be clear, no one was trying to hold her novelistic hobby against her, it just seems in the context of an encyclopedia article to be an irrelevant detail which certainly does not contribute to the subject's notability. Further that institute which she founded is hardly a sign of notability as the institute itself is not particularly notable (does not have an article, does not turn up significant results in Google News searches, etc.) Themanfromscene24 (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having reread the guidlines for deletion, I do not believe that these are met. I do believe that the article will benefit from a revision, including better formatting and the inclusion of Dr. Selz's patents. I will make these revisions. comment added by wikiwaki8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC). — wikiwaki8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There aren't any guidelines for deletion, only for inclusion on the basis of various kinds of notability. Now that the article is here at AfD, the only way it will be retained is if notability under one of those categories can be demonstrated. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WoS shows a scholarship having a very average impact: h-index = 8. Although there are some papers with reasonably high cites, the corresponding author on those seems to predominantly be Arnold J. Mandell. I would suggest that no further WP:SPAs weigh-in here because this sort of thing quickly sours the mood of other eds you hope to win-over, especially because the article itself was created by a SPA account and because there is already some level of special pleading for accomplishments that are outside of WP:PROF (e.g. specific research results or organizing meetings). Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the placement of the bar for being an authority is disputed, but I think that the doubt is at higher levels--by all reasonable interpretation of the discussions on the subject, her record of publications is considerably below the standard, and there is nothing else compensating for it. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The citation counts for her work aren't high enough to convince me that she's making the significant impact demanded by WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Stanley Mooneyham[edit]

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

not clear how this might meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was notable as president of World Vision for 14 years, a Christian evangelical group that currently has US$2.6 billion annual revenue and 40,000 employees. The article now has two solid biographical references. No persuasive argument for deletion has been made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in article. Please note I have not been able to check these offline sources personally but am assuming good faith (especially as someone who is verifiably the 14-year president of World Vision would be likely to have attracted significant coverage in reliable independent sources). Googling "Mooneyham World Vision" turns up several other likely sources including an LA Times article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snippets of both of the sources are available online through the Google Books tool above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search for "Stan Mooneyham" yields many more results, including discussion in Billy Graham's autobiography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entries in Balmer's Encyclopedia of Evangelism(ISBN 9780664224097), Melton's Religious Leaders of America (ISBN 9780810388789) and Prime-time religion: an encyclopedia of religious broadcasting (ISBN 9780897749022), as well as many other books, confers suffiecient notability to pass WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲水 08:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jessie (TV series)#Chris Galya. v/r - T P 01:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Galya[edit]

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

PROD deleted. Not notable per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Only one marginally significant recurring role, no indication of fan base or cult following, has made no unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And I'm usually the #1 defender of keeping new bio articles for new Disney Channel stars, but (aside from a few Disney press releases listing the cast of Jessie) I can only find a couple reliable sources mentioning him working as a model a few years ago. Not a single interview with him to provide even the most basic info, such as date/place of birth, etc., so a "bio" here is really premature. What little info was included in the creation of his page here is already listed (more concisely, without spelling/punctuation errors, etc) on IMDb. We all know that by this time next year, he'll most likely be considered "notable" enough to start a page, but right now, he's not even one of the "leading" actors on Jessie, he's "recurring" and has not appeared in most episodes of the show so far. It's nothing personal - but Wikipedia's notability guidelines are pretty clear - If he was part of the "main" cast or if there was even one reliable source providing some basic info like a birthday, how he got into acting/modeling, etc, then I could argue to keep it, but when even I can't make a case to keep an article - that's a sure sign that the page is dead in the water. I suggest any pages that mention him can be blue-linked to his IMDb page until we have something about him besides a Filmography. I personally use date of birth as a jumping off point. If you don't even have a DOB, you don't have the first building block to a bio page IMO, with extremely rare exceptions, such as when an aging actress is obviously deliberately hiding her age (and in the case of an extremely young/good-looking actor/model, that's obviously not the case). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Jessie (TV series)#Chris Galya per above. I wish I had something to add, but everything I would have mentioned has been said already. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, but without prejudice to re-creation once there are reliable independent sources upon which to base a proper biographical article about the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Jessie (TV series) without prejudice per WP:NotJustYet. While his short career[55] is verifiable,[56] it fails WP:ENT, and his lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. We can at least send readers to the one place where he can be sourced in context to his work on that series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Comment - I added an anchor at Jessie (TV series)#Chris Galya as a potential redirect target. --Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 01:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Boyett-Compo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Author of a number of books that do not meet WP:NB criteria. Article does not meet WP:BLP criteria, as the only source used fails WP:RS rules quite spectacularly. Quick search on Google News finds no recent articles about this author. Publisher of recent works seems to focus mostly on ebooks and may be a vanity press, though I am uncertain. While small, minor sites seem to mention this person occasionally, I am not seeing anything that would come close to demonstrating notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and article was created by editor with clear COI. Previous deletion discussion was many years back, before we had more stable criteria for determining inclusion, and was closed due to no consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm in the process of searching for sources, so I'm not going to say anything just yet, but I just wanted to state that Ellora's Cave is an actual publisher. It's a very small independent publisher that deals mostly in ebooks, but it isn't a vanity or self-publish type of setup and is relatively well known in the romance world. That being said, being published does not automatically give you notability and I'm having a hard time trying to find anything to justify keeping her article on here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I searched pretty hard for anything that could justify keeping Boyett-Compo on here, but it seems that she's on the very cusp of what Wikipedia would consider to be notable. She has a lot of ghits, but not of anything that would be considered reliable sources. (Ghits aren't enough to justify notability, after all.) She's been nominated for awards but hasn't won anything big just yet and most of the awards are sort of "minor" as far as wikipedia guidelines go. [57], [58], [59] Nor has any of her books hit the NYT or any of the big bestseller listings. The only thing that would potentially give her enough to stay is if I knew what type of profile she got in the Writer's Digest Publishing Success entry, although it sounds sort of like it was more of a brief entry where she was mentioned along with other authors. I can't find the actual article- the only mentions of it refer back to sites the author has put this info on. At this moment she just isn't notable enough to warrant an article. She might be in the future but then she might not be and keeping the article on the idea that she might be is a WP:CRYSTAL no-no. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Additional: Just to mention, if this is deleted then there might be some extensive cleanup from User:Windlegends, whose sole editing purpose on here has been to insert mentions of this author into various pages. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Additional additional. If this is deleted then the powers that be might want to consider blocking Windlegends since they've already added an entry that was previously deleted for being promotional in nature and their whole purpose for being is to add mentions of CBC to various articles. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79. I had a look through a couple of book-trade databases myself as well, and came up with nothing that would pass WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲水 08:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any significant independent coverage—one quote, a couple of references as a survivor in an obit—in news or books. ^Bongo_matic 00:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable self-published author. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 14 November 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. v/r - T P 01:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valkyrie 07[edit]

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

also nominating:

Valkyrie 06
Valkyrie 05
Valkyrie 04
Valkyrie 03
Valkyrie 02
Valkyrie 01
Valkyrie 08
Cage Force & Valkyrie

another series of non notable sporting results that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. coverage is all primary sources. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I agree with nom. These are routine sports coverage of women's MMA events put of by the "sister organization" of Cage Force, which has already been removed as non-notable. The events clearly fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per our ample precedent. --Neutrality^talk 05:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as above.Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 14 November 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.