< 30 October	1 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 delete. Tone 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An imperial affliction[edit]

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

Not notable. Sources are passing mentions. Originally PRODed, rm by creator, at that time even the article said " the book has gained little popularity. Only one printing was ever made and fewer of those still survive." Dennis Brown (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note While I try to always assume good faith, the article was created with the tags {pp-semi-protected|small=yes}, {pp-move-indef} and {Good article}, which looks rather odd, to say the least. Not a reason to delete, but interesting nonetheless. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: No assertion of notability, never mind any evidence of the same. Zero hits on a G-Books search of the title with the alleged author's name. I expect this is a hoax. Ravenswing 00:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40-Elephant-Circus-Parade-Manure-Pile Delete for sheer pretentious gall, plus bonus points for the illiterate phrase trails and tribulations. In the meantime I've cut some excess verbiage. [1] EEng (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G3 speedy delete this Wikipedia affliction. Zero ghits for this "book". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:V and there is no assertion which could be construed as meeting WP:N Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-at-the-speed-of-light. No notability, no ghits, nothing to show that this merits an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete - According to a comment on Talk:An imperial affliction, this is a "book" in a book that that has yet to be released. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment looks like snow. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:21, 6 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 Star in the Hood (album). Courcelles 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable third-party sources, and no other indication it meets WP:NSONGS. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star in the Hood (album). -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever for? There doesn't need to be a redir for it to show up in search results, nor to have an entry on the Breakaway disambiguation page. Redirects from disambiguated page titles are of extremely dubious value even when they're of the Example (song) form; there's no possible way that anyone will specifically search for as disambiguated page title as this. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:NSONG, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." (emphasis added) -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONG. 1exec1 (talk) 18:39, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wirraway accidents[edit]

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

This list, while nicely compiled, is a listing of utterly non-notable accidents of a military tranining aircraft. Military training aircraft tend to crash a lot for reasons that should be obvious; none of the crashes come close to meeting notability standards. WP:AIRCRASH would be the revelant essay, which these fail utterly; they also fail WP:NOT - while the list isn't indiscriminate (in fact, quite the opposite) the list itself is arguably "indiscriminate information", and it's also likely failing WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of source documents - WP:NPS. This article seems to be a rewriting of the data contained in a single document. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I believe it does meet WP:AIRCRASH "The accident(s) resulted in changes to procedures". Merge with CAC Wirraway. Ray-Rays (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way did they result in changes to procedures? The article makes no claim of such for any of the accidents. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional sources can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - It seems that the content of that page may have been taken from [2] which has a more comprehension listing of the training accidents and deaths. I did find a memorial for one of those training accidents: [3]. I can only add that I did start the article Maroochy air crash which was an incident involving lost of civilian life, which occurred after the War. I do know that the plane was then removed by the RAAF from aerial shark patrols and that procedures for flights over beaches were changed (I was told this at a pre-memorial), but as this accident is outside of the list of those training accidents, it has no impact on what decision should be made. Boylo (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is too much detail for a Wikipedia article, and is just a re-write of information from a sincle source.Derek B 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Delete - definitely not notable. 1exec1 (talk) 18:39, 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 delete. Tone 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley O'Shaughnessy[edit]

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

Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Calvin999 doesn't say anything about the person or why it should be deleted. One word, Rihanna. He is currently Rihanna's boyfriend. He was never a professional boxer, but he did try out for the Olympic team. Bgwhite (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) There is no early life section, so we don't know who he is or where is is from 2) Being a rumoured celeb boyfriend and being in a video does not warrant an article 3) There are no achievements (from his boxing or modeling) as to why he is notable 3) There is no info box stating all his boxing and modeling info and stats 4) There is only one line on this article, where is the notability? It's a waste of an article 5) Bottom line, there is no biographical information, or information, period. Satisfied? :) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
comment—is it not usual to procedurally close these things if no reason for deletion is given by nominator? i couldn't find a policy saying so, but i seem to recall it being done recently.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If something related to his alleged boxing achievements could be dug up, it might change my mind, but for now, he's just an appendage of Rihanna. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearing in a video doesn't make you notable and no other reason is given. No independent evidence is given that he's a boxer, much less a notable one. Papaursa (talk) 03:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion in the text of this article indicates that the article's subject meets WP:N. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 6 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 per WP:CSD#A7 by Qwyrxian (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Cross (musician)[edit]

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

No evidence this musician or his band meets WP:MUSIC. Supplied references don't check out. All I can verify is that Cross is a member of the band When We Were Small. My searches for their supposedly charting EP Twisted Fingles yielded nothing. Disputed prod. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. After you remove the hoax chart claim (ARIA Chart, Lady Antebellum was 49) you are left with an a7 speedy. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:21, 4 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 C standard library. Relevant policy is WP:CFORK. We shouldn't carry articles that cover the same subject under different titles so combining (or in cases where its already covered redirecting) content is a standard outcome and doesn't require an AFD. Arguably if there needed to be a discussion this should have been at RFD but we seem to have attracted enough knowledable input here to reach a consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stdlib.h[edit]

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

This article has been replaced with a redirect for a while until some editor came saying that it must necessarily go through the AFD process. So here is the request. The rationale to delete this article is that almost all its content is duplicated across several other articles, namely C dynamic memory allocation (malloc, free, calloc, realloc), C miscellaneous operations (qsort, bsearch, ato*, strto*, rand, srand), C program control operations (system, getenv, abort, exit, atexit), C mathematical operations (abs, labs, div, ldiv), stddef.h (NULL, size_t). Itoa as a nonstandard function is currently not included anywhere. The splitting of the article was the result of recent initiative to reorganize the articles about C standard library (you may see the discussion which was the starting point). Due to the fact that the organization is almost complete and this page clearly does not fit into the new structure by duplicating the content, I suggest this article to be ~~replaced~~ speedy replaced with a redirect to C standard library. 1exec1 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC) 1exec1 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit) Since C miscellaneous operations is up for deletion, its content has been merged to C string and C mathematical functions. 1exec1 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nominator. 1exec1 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to C standard library. This has been discussed at length at the appropriate talk pages, WikiProjects and several previous related AfDs. There's absolutely no need to go through AfD for all those articles, because a single editor apparently disagrees, where exactly the same people will turn up to reach the same conclusion. —Ruud 22:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Thats not correct - its not a single editor - there has been a lot of disagreement. Take a look at the talk pages Talk:C_standard_library#Pages_for_each_function_and_WP:NOTMANUAL, and the talk page of the nominater, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limits.h - the latter is a very insignificant header file compared to this one. The reason I recreated this article, thats because it was a redirect to C program control operations which is misleding if you want to know what stdlib.h is. If the new suggestion to redirect it to C standard library, the only infomation you get is: "For performing a variety of operations, including conversion, pseudo-random numbers, memory allocation, process control, environment, signalling, searching, and sorting.". The whole problem is, the articles has not been merged and therefore I disagree with your speedy redirect. And I have AFDed C miscellaneous operations - I think the way the headers has been split up is WP:OR and selfmade titles. E.g. I have not found a citation which states thats C mathematical operations is the functions in that article, but I have found a lot about plus and minus etc. I thought it was a good idea to merge a lot of the function which was the title of the discussion Talk:C_standard_library#Pages_for_each_function_and_WP:NOTMANUAL" but too late I (and probably) serveral other people recognized that it was about a new structure for the article, and the article was not merged as suggested) but just redirects to oneliners e.g. "strncmp - compares specific number of bytes in two strings" (yes (strncmp) was a poor article before, but now the redirect is useless - unless you want to leave wikipedia (the "merger" has included a lot of external links instead of mergeing the articles). Btw. the article Itoa the nominator says he couldnt fine a place to redirect, whats the solution to that - making it a redirect to C miscellaneous operations (without mergeing or mention the name of the redirect on the target). Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request. Before asserting that the article has not been merged, please show any material at stdlib.h that can not be found in the abovementioned articles. As of itoa, the article about it went in length and even tried to find every appearance of that function anywhere (section other appearances), so I think it definitely fails WP:GNG. I don't see how your point has any value with regard to this discussion until you address this request. 1exec1 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided sources that back all article names except C miscellaneous operations which will probably be deleted. WP:OR no longer applies. 1exec1 (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per my comment Christian75 (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some things just plain have actual names. This is one of them. This is malloc all over again. The thing is called stdlib.h. Unless there's an argument (and I haven't heard it) that it's not notable, it certainly doesn't need someone's idea of a much better name. Msnicki (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request Could you name any sources that would allow us to write an encyclopedic article on this subject, i.e. one that describes the history of stdlib.h and the impact it has had on computer programming or society as opposed to a transcription of the C language specification? I would believe those exists for the topics "C standard library" and "printf", but I'm doubtful they exists for stdlib.h. —Ruud 01:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where in the WP:GNG it requires that? stdlib.h did not appear in K&R 1st ed but does appears in the second edition on pg 142 (in a discussion of malloc) and in a section devoted to it, "B5. Utility function: <stdlib.h>", pp 251–253. That's a primary source, but I'll bet we can find lots of secondaries if you really need them. Msnicki (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT seems to be the relevant policy here. Could you name some concrete titles of secondary sources covering stdlib.h? My book on C++ only contains a one sentence description, followed buy a list of function prototypes with one-sentence descriptions. That can be covered in C standard library, but isn't enough warrant its own article. An encyclopedia is supposed to summarize knowledge from different sources, but here I don't see how we would just end up duplicating http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf . —Ruud 11:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here is another book that gives stdlib.h its own section. Satisfied? Msnicki (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only view a snippet from that book, so I'm still not convinced that there is enough material to write a stand-alone article on stdlib.h, instead of a section in C standard library or other overview article. —Ruud 16:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That book only contains only a very short mention of stdlib.h itself and then goes about the contained functions, so no, there is not enough material for a separate article. 1exec1 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD doesn't work the way you think. What the WP:GNG asks is that we establish that non-trivial coverage in reliable sources WP:RS exists. Objections that you would have to pay to read them WP:PAYWALL or that you don't think there's enough material WP:TOOLITTLE are both arguments to avoid. Yes, the intent is to ensure that an encyclopedic article can be written but notability guidelines do not limit content within an article. There is certainly room to add encyclopedic content, e.g., tracing the development or documentary history of this particular named and well-known collection of routines. Msnicki (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find your response to be a bit convoluted, I'll try to address the points you are raising:

I was not complaining about the paywall in the sense you describe here. The fragmentary view of the source you pointed me too gave the strong impression that it only gave a one-sentence description of stdlib.h. If you have access to the source and can confirm that it gives more extensive coverage, then please say so, as it will likely cause me to revise my opinion.
WP:TOOLITTLE mostly concerns the current state of the article, not its potential. Furthermore, no-one here seems interested in deleting coverage of stdlib.h from Wikipedia, but want to improve the quality of its coverage by integrating it in a more extensive article.
Development and documentary history would be great additions, but we're not aware of any sources covering these subjects. Doing our own historical research would probably cross the line into original research (as you indicated yourself at Talk:C dynamic memory allocation#Proposal to split).

—Ruud 18:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP:OR to go look for archival sources and to use them to document history, establishing who did what, when and according to published statements, why. You can see where I've added some of this to the C shell, Bash (Unix shell), GNU Compiler Collection articles. That's definitely not WP:HOWTO and it's not original research. Original research isn't your own personal effort to go find sources to document and support individual statements in an article. That's what you're supposed to do and you're supposed to do that all the time. Original research is the WP:SYNTHESIS of what individual sources report into something new, e.g., arguing that all these sources are really talking about an umbrella topic of a different name without actually establishing that's true or even that the new term means the same thing to everyone. Msnicki (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're dealing with primary as opposed to secondary sources here, so the situation is definitely not as clear cut as you're trying to make it sound here. More importantly, could you address or rebut the 1st and 2nd point? —Ruud 20:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We only need secondary sources to establish notability. They're just plain out there. To deny that to a deletionist like me (and go look at my history to verify that) is not going to work. Once you're past the notability hurdle, you're allowed to use primary sources to establish other facts. From WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." That's pretty restrictive, but it's also pretty useful. For example, if you accept that bash is notable, it's okay to use Google's snapshot of Brian Fox's announcement to establish that he released his version 0.99 beta on Jun 7, 1989. For that purpose, that source is reliable (at least, it is until someone challenges it), even if it is primary. Msnicki (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular case that would be an uncontroversial use of such sources. However you're still managing to keep this discussion extremely hypothetical. Do you have any concrete suggestions for sources that pertain only to stdlib.h - as opposed to the whole C standard library - and can be used to expand the article beyond a size that would be manageable as a simple section of C standard library? Also, you still did not address or rebut my 1st and 2nd points above. —Ruud 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminding you of my earlier request, if you can find any part of the guidelines that says you're entitled to any that in an AfD to establish notability, I will do whatever it says. Msnicki (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG:

Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.

The purpose of this AfD, at the request of Christian75, is to be to reach a consensus on whether stdlib.h should be a stand-alone article or covered as a section in another article. —Ruud 21:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t delete; I don’t think anyone suggested completely deleting the contents and history from public view. There is potential for much of the content to overlap with things like C functions#stdlib.h, Standard C library#ISO C library headers, Null pointer, size_t, and the older div (C) and itoa pages, so perhaps merging, splitting, and redirecting should be discussed instead of deletion. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 06:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I strongly believe that all content (except the section about itoa which fails WP:GNG) is already at the following articles: C dynamic memory allocation (malloc, free, calloc, realloc), C string (ato*, strto*), C program control operations (system, getenv, abort, exit, atexit), C mathematical functions (abs, labs, div, ldiv, rand, srand), stddef.h (NULL, size_t). So the bulk of what you suggest is already done. 1exec1 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep where it is. Previous discussions have established that stdlib.h, with its included functions, is notable in its own right. Redirecting to C standard library is not optimal because C standard library comprises much more than this header file. The fact that most of this article's content is duplicated in other articles is not a rationale for deletion, because the combination of content on this page remains unique and serves as an outline for the C implementations of the algorithms and functionalities included in this header. Der yck C. 23:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that stdlib.h is notable, there is no intent to delete the coverage of stdlib.h. However I think the fact that this particular combination of functions is unique establishes only a very weak argument. since most of WP:RS organize their content differently. Several examples:

Tony Crawford, Peter Prinz -- C in a Nutshell (ISBN 0-596-00697-7) : §15 introduces the headers, each with a very concise list of what functionality (not functions) is contained; §16 talks about each group of functions individually. Various bits from stdlib.h are assigned to Mathematical functions, Multibyte characters, Converting Between Numbers and Strings, Searching and Sorting, Dynamic Memory Management, Process control.
Peter Prinz; Ulla Kirch-Prinz -- C pocket reference (ISBN 978-0-596-00436-1): No analysis of headers at all (they are listed though in §1.15). The content of stdlib.h is assigned to §1.18. Mathematical Functions, §1.20. String handling, §1.21. Searching and Sorting, §1.23. Dynamic Memory Management.
Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie -- The C programming language (2nd edition, ISBN 0-13-110362-8): No analysis of headers, except in Appendix B Standard Library. The content of stdlib.h is assigned to §2.7 Type Conversions, §7.8.4 Command Execution, §7.8.5 Storage Management, §7.8.7 Random Number generation.
Herbert Schildt -- C/C++ Programmer's Reference (3rd edition, ISBN 0-07-222722-2): No analysis of headers at all. The content of stdlib.h is assigned to §11. The Dynamic Allocation Functions and §12. Miscellaneous Functions
The C++ standard: No analysis of headers at all. The content of stdlib.h is assigned to §18.5. Start and termination, §18.10. Other runtime support, §20.6 Memory, §21.7 Null terminated sequence utilities, §25.5 C library algorithms, §26.8 C [numerics] library.

Even the C standard names the section about stdlib.h not stdlib.h, but General utilities <stdlib.h>, thus we should at least rename the article, as overwhelming majority of other sources don't use stdlib.h in section names, neither actually talk a lot about stdlib.h. Note, that although we can find a book about anything using search, I did not use search to find sources, thus my sampling should be quite unbiased as opposed to searching for stdlib.h and getting many more books about it. Hence this should be quite good argument why stdlib.h shouldn't have its own article. I agree that redirecting to C standard library probably isn't the best we can do though. As an alternative I propose to create new article C standard library headers and to concisely discuss all headers there, probably without listing all functions/macros, but stating what kind of functionality these headers contain. 1exec1 (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to C standard library#ISO_C_library_headers. The text in this article is high quality, different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limits.h, which was not. That makes it more important to preserve the content somewhere, but the same argument applies. I'll rehash what I said there. #1 in WP:NOTMANUAL applies. While the specific phrases "how-to" and "owner's manual" don't adequately describe Stdlib.h, it belongs in a reference manual, not in an encyclopedia. #8 in WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies: "Wikipedia articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Emphasis mine of course: knowledge includes facts but it's not just a litany of all available facts. --Pnm (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources exist, and WP:GNG is obviously satisfied. As to the redirect proposals, C miscellaneous operations is up for deletion, while C_standard_library#ISO_C_library_headers is just a table of article pointers, and requires this article to exist. -- 202.124.72.20 (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is only a prerequisite for an article. As some editors already pointed out, we can't write an encyclopedic article about stdlib.h. The argument is that is that there exists only very little amount of information about stdlib.h file itself, and the information about contained functions should be described in other articles, because they are better known as mathematical functions in C and similar. This point is quite important, since per WP:TITLE, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Here WP:RS almost unanimously use mathematical functions and similar names, not stdlib.h, to refer to these functions. There might be concern that stdlib.h gets plenty hits on google for example, I think that does not matter here, because they refer to stdlib.h as a file, and as I've said, there's little information about stdlib.h as a file. It can be summarized as " stdlib.h is a header file in C standard library, it contains the following functions: [1] [2] [3] ...". As the functions ([1][2][3] part) should be described in other articles per the above argumentation, the remaining part does not deserve a separate article for sure. Also, a link does not require the target article to exist, it's the other way - per WP:RED an existing article is a prerequisite for a link, unless its notability is obvious. Finally, WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. 1exec1 (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing forces that section to be a table. A couple encyclopedic sentences about important header files could easily go in subsections, before a table listing the remaining headers. --Pnm (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to C standard library. The file is not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is already established that stdlib.h is notable enough. What we're debating is that the current arrangement of C articles is rather disorganised, and the reorganisation may require merging this article's content into others. Der yck C. 14:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is part of the notable C standard library but independent notability has not been shown and such in depth coverage of a computer language, even one as notable as C, risks creating a how-to guide, something Wikipedia is not. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In support of notability, I have added 4 sources to the article. Msnicki (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to all of these sources and can confirm that neither of them have description of stdlib.h file longer than two sentences. Two of them (K&R and Through C to C++:...) describe stdlib.h only in appendixes. Note, that the main concern is not notability, since there's no intent to reduce of coverage of stdlib.h, but the form of presentation, WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY 1exec1 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. There may only be a couple introductory sentences introducing the topic, but that's followed by several pages of detail on each of the routines with lots of sentences in K&R and Holmes and other works. The header is notable; deal with it. Msnicki (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just added two more sources. Msnicki (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not silly. That isn't related to this discussion.
WP:GNG #1 "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". No sources have longer description of stdlib.h than two sentences. Details about routines gives notability to those routines, not stdlib.h.
Two of the sources (K&R and Holmes) describe stdlib.h only in appendixes. This gives them only questionable importance. google groups reference is not WP:RS, since the poster is neither reliable nor notable. Also, stdlib.h is only mentioned, but not analyzed there. C standard draft is WP:PRIMARY and does not give more information about stdlib.h than that is a file that defines some functions. K&R talks about the same functions at §2.7 Type Conversions, §7.8.4 Command Execution, §7.8.5 Storage Management, §7.8.7 Random Number generation in the main text, not appendix.
WP:TITLE "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Even with the added sources, more WP:RS (my comment above) support mathematical functions and similar titles, than stdlib.h.
The header is notable; deal with it. : WP:GNG #5 "... significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion ..."
WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:NOTDIRECTORY as pointed out above in a Pnm's comment is still a problem. You are yet to address that.

1exec1 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation problems notwithstanding, I like the kind of content Msnicki added in this edit. If there were more facts like that I could see keeping a stub. But the remaining, reference manual-like content still doesn't belong. --Pnm (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that in general. However, I don't think that it's possible to find such facts, as I am yet to see a reliable source saying more that stdlib.h is a file and contains specific functions. This particular addition is not specific to stdlib.h and is already covered at C standard library#History. It's also WP:OR since the sources don't directly support it - standardisation might as well have been started year earlier, who knows, sources don't say that, especially as C standard library#History gives different timings. So I think a reasonable approach would be to cover stdlib.h in a section at C standard library until there's enough information so it can be split back here. I don't think that leaving stdlib.h serves a purpose, since the potential of expansion of the article has not been demonstrated (no RS covering stdlib.h in more than two sentences). 1exec1 (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The specialists have no consensus on their discussion page listed above for how to handle it in general. As someone who isn't one, I think the common sense position is a merge; the material will be more suitable for use in one place, and in the sum its important enough for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we merge the headers to the standard library, where should we merge information about the functions - as I see it - if a headers isnt notable to have its own article - article like printf and malloc should not have one either and should be merge to standard library too. Christian75 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think printf format string and C dynamic memory allocation are related to this case. They both are extensive encyclopedic articles as compared to this one, where we can't find sources with more than two sentences of description. 1exec1 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I can't see how such a little problem generated such a long discussion. Isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? It shouldn't contain a description of every bit on the planet. Here there is a dictionary-like description of some obscure file with a list of functions. It's the functions that are important! And there are some well-written articles about them already, such as C dynamic memory allocation or C string. Burn this article, it only wastes time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.69.225.34 (talk) 17:25, 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. DGG has voted twice but the overall argument that this is someone inadequately sourced hasn't been disputed and SNGs justified articles for BLPs where a decent search for sourcing has failed to turn up enough contradict BLP and a meta consensus on the requirement to source BLPs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Edwards (poet, writer & independent film producer)[edit]

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

Promotional article on a writer of questionable notability. As most claims are related to her film company, a Google search on "Sam Edwards" "Ragged Crow" shows only 68 unique results, none from independent reliable sources - mostly blogs, social media, or simple listings. Article appears to have been created/edited by a pair of SPAs doing nothing but creating promotional articles for Ragged Crow films, its principals, and its projects. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Edwards is listed on IMDb as a writer of several short films and the sole writer of Stealing Elvis... Her poetry has been published on secondary sites, such as Plectrum, TCP which is an independently produced webzine and magazine quite apart from anything that Ragged Crow does... Her writing, particularly her poetry has an big underground following in London. It is important to list underground writers alongside more conventional ones in Wikipedia, so that the encyclopedia has a wide scope for the things that people want to look up... I understand that articles in Wikipedia should not be for promotional purposes, but if people are looking things up on IMDb (an organisation quite apart from Ragged Crow), then surely they can expect to have them ratified on Wikipedia... Again, I would question the use of google as the strongest method of verification, as it throws up differing results according to user preferences... --Seditonary (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Seditionary— Seditonary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Great. Show us some independent, reliable, 2ndard sources commenting on any of what you claim. EEng (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't include everyone from IMDb, not by a long shot. Edwards' film credits are all for short films except Stealing Elvis, which has an estimated budget of £5000. None have attracted much attention; Elvis has gotten the most IMDb votes, nine, which is fewer than the number of cast members. The writing is similarly unreviewed. I recommend Afd'ing Stealing Elvis too. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being on IMDb isn't an automatic sign of notability and I wasn't able to find any sources on the internet. Most of what I did find wasn't what wikipedia considers to be a reliable source. It was also pretty difficult to find references for the movie as well. Unless there are sources available now, there's no reason to keep this. Also, it should be noted that reliable sources does not include playbills, brief listings in the news, or anything that could be seen as promotional or put out by the company/person/representative themselves. Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic platform that "anyone can edit, use, modify and distribute", isn't it? (- Wikipedia: Five Pillars). A platform that does not "apply hard and fast rules" (- Wikipedia: Policies and Guidelines). Sam Edwards has a four year history of writing and producing short films, that have screened at reputable festivals, and has written and produced a feature, which might be considered noteworthy precisely because it was produced for £5 grand for 7 days of filming - cross ref with other films that are notable for their achievement despite low budgets such as The Blair Witch Project. Sam Edwards has also written a novel and poetry, which has been published and reviewed, both in poetry magazines and on the internet (which have been cited)... I am a new contributor and understand that I might be met with with certain suspicion, but is this a case of "bite the newbie"? Many articles in Wikipedia must have had lowly beginnings. I am not saying that this article is full and complete, but I do reiterate that it is a decent enough starting off point for a subject that can be expanded upon... From an acorn does an oak grow... And I do believe that aspiring film-makers are interested to know about Sam Edwards as a screenwriter and producer, as are the people who follow her as a poet and novelist, and that they would be interested in a brief article about her on Wikipedia... If in the future Sam Edwards proves to do nothing more than she has already, then of course this should be reviewed. But Wikipedia (Five Pillars) encourages contributors to "be bold" (but not reckless) and as such I think this article should be given a chance - and when more citations and references become available, I will add them... I might even find that other contributors are interested enough to do likewise.

As another addendum, perhaps the title of the article comes across as being a little grandiose - but there were other Sam Edwardses, a physicist, and an actor who was in Little House on the Prairie... and I wanted to distinguish her from them - perhaps calling the article Sam Edwards (producer) or Sam Edwards (III) or (X) as she is listed on IMDb. Or Sam (Middle Initial) Edwards (apologies don't know what her middle initial is) would be better... --Seditonary (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Gene93k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

More like "bite the SPA." Could you please just, as requested, point to an applicable notability guideline, together with the sources that satisfy it? EEng (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Promotional, yes, but there are sources that show that this person is notable. Article should be retitled to Sam Edwards (filmmaker) Inter rest (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: can someone point to a notability guideline, together with sources on the subject that satisfy that guideline? EEng (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the straightforward basis of having written a notable film, with some additional notability from the poetry. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) .[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED EEng (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. The essay NOTINHERTITED is set more to deal with relationships between people and does not overrule the guideline WP:CREATIVE which is set to deal with the results of creative efforts, when SIGCOV is not met. IE: verifiable involvement in the creation of notable works DOES impart notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per User:DGG. Yes, the article is promotional in nature and needs a lot of work, but I see something salvageable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusilver (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources insufficient to sustain notability. Neutrality^talk 16:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've reviewed the sources and looked for others. Nowhere near notable under any guideline I can think of. EEng (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can think of notability guideline WP:CREATIVE... which deals with notability in cases where SIGCOV is lacking. That notability guideline indicates that verifiable involvement in the creation of notable works DOES impart notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing the sources which meet WP:V. The claim for notability is association with a notable film, and even if it were sourced this does not meet WP:N because notability is not inherited from association with a notable project. There is an assertion that this is also a published author but there are no reviews. The best sources for this are blog-style independent reviews. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect. Read WP:CREATIVE. Verifiable involvement in the creation of notable works does impart notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're both right. CREATIVE specifies, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". So the article's subject need not have significant coverage on her own, but the work must be (a) significant or well-known and (b) have been the subject of etc etc. (a) is a big vague, but have we got (b) for Stealing Elvis? I haven't found it. EEng (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Verifiable involvement in the creation of notable works shows notability. Meets WP:CREATIVE, and as article issues are addressable, deletion is not a mandate.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE in my view. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am reluctant to differ from MQS in this subject, but the notability of his only possibly notable work is based entirely on a quotation "what Ragged Crow have managed to achieve is commendable as it is full of hope and positivity for their future projects" This may be a favourable notice, but only in the sense of what we call NOT YET NOTABLE. I will also admit to a certain negative view about an obvious coi author who used so expansive and promotional an article title. If kept, it will of course be fixed to show less promotionalism, but it indicates the approach. DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 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 keep. Merges can be done without AFD, and there is no argument raised for deletion. Courcelles 23:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isle of Caprice[edit]

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

non notable episode, no references. Suggest merge to show/list of episodes page. Long list of associated pages as well with the same criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close for failure to advance a deletion rationale; merging/redirecting are normal editing procedures that don't require AFD. I'm fine with merging/redirecting to The Ant and the Aardvark. But I'd also support keeping as a standalone for expansion as it's not merely an "episode", it's a theatrical short, and those tend to get a lot more particularized attention from animation historians. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 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. Merger discussions can continue elsewhere, however, no argument for using the deletion tool presented. Courcelles 23:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reel Pink[edit]

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

contested prod. Non notable episode. Creator added references showing notability of series, not episode. One of many articles related. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's not merely an "episode", but a theatrical short, and those tend to get a lot more particularized attention from animation historians. As a second choice, merge/redirect to List of The Pink Panther cartoons. In other words, this AFD should never have been started because deletion is not a proper alternative. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt propose merge, because the stub content of the episodes is already in the main article. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with the rationale for retention by Postdlf (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 05:12, 2 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. No need to waste further time on this one. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Days[edit]

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

Unremarkable film with no reliable sources making it unverifiable and not establishing notability. Could be a hoax, but hard to tell. Prod contested without comment by original author, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Amateur film made by two children, with no notability. I am tempted to speedily-delete it as promotion. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11. Eeekster (talk) 20:21, 31 October 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. Courcelles 23:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cock-A-Doodle Deux Deux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable episode, no references. Suggest merge to show/list of episodes page. Previously subject of AFD with result merge, not merged. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's not merely an "episode", but a theatrical short, and those tend to get a lot more particularized attention from animation historians. As a second choice, merge/redirect to The Inspector. In other words, this AFD should never have been started because deletion is not a proper alternative. postdlf (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, essentially per the sound analysis by Postdlf (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:11, 2 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. Tone 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C miscellaneous operations[edit]

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

There is no such thing as "C miscellaneous operations" in the C standard Library - its maybe WP:OR. The cited material, which is WP:PRIMARY, does not mention miscellaneous operations and it look like the refs just cite some random functions. I have tried to seach for the term, but with no luck. Christian75 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources necessary to establish notability of this subject as required by WP:GNG. That's the formal reason. More to the point, this is just a WP:MADEUP list of random functions. While it might be appropriate to discuss these routines in the context of a notable subject like the C standard library, there's no evidence to suggest they merit a separate article. Wikipedia is not a manual. Msnicki (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to C standard library. I don't see any potential to develop this into an encyclopedic article. —Ruud 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I'm sole contributor of this article. This article was created only because during a recent reorganization of articles about C standard library I felt a need for gradual transition without completely removing mentions of functions that before had full articles about them. So delete it now, I will merge some bits to relevant articles later. Thanks! 1exec1 (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Nawrocki[edit]

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

No source, no claim of notability, and pl wiki does not have an article on him. Could even be a hoax. This sport-bio-spam needs, at the very least, to prove its not a hoax before we can keep it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a hoax, Wojciech Nawrocki is unknown to best Polish soccer database and is not mentioned by official Widzew's site. Lajsikonik (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an anon has removed the AFD tag (due to this and other confusion, the article has been prodded three times in the recent history... :) ). This article may warrant semi or speedy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find anything about him. Bgwhite (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it cannot be verified it will of course have to be deleted. I defer to the experts on the language/subject. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything either. A google search returned no results. His name is, as far as I can tell with my limited knowledge of the Polish language, not mentioned on the club's homepage. --Phileasson (talk) 09:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an apparent hoax. If the content of the article can be verified, it would of course meet notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to be a hoax. Giant Snowman 18:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability or that he even exists. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:23, 3 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 Libyan Hostage Situation 1984. Actually delete and redirect. This is clear BLP1E and keep arguments by SPAs are not give much if any weight per long standing convention at AFD. I think both delete and redirect are options from the discussion and meta consensus us that non-notable pages should redirect to an appropriate target. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Plummer[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)

WP:ONEEVENT, only claim to fame is being taken as a hostage with several other men. The whole article is vaguely promotional as well and doesn't clearly indicate his notability beyond being a hostage. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like being taken hostage is not enough for wikipedia!?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.112.79 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have changed the article significantly today. It now speaks more of the Libyan Hostage Situation that up until Gaddafi's death has been under a moratorium due to the release agreement in 1985. We are working very hard to produce more references, but it has it's difficulties as previously stated. Find it odd that John McCarthy (journalist) is not also questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article is about the hostage situation, not about just Plummer, so should be under a title that reflects that. When you say, "We have changed the article", is that the royal "we" or are you editing in behalf of an organisation? And this discussion is about this article: if you want to question the notability of John McCarthy (which would be a silly thing to do) then that would be a matter for a separate discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer each point:

"We" = more than one individual, not part of an organisation
We are not questioning Mr. McCarthy's notability, far from it, but Falcon8765 has under his/her interpretation of the rules: only claim to fame is being taken as a hostage with several other men. The whole article is vaguely promotional. Originally the article's content did not differ significantly from Mr. McCarthy's example.

We will be adding the personal information back in and would appreciate any comments/guidance. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) 09:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Rename Libyan hostage taking of 1984 or something like that, and rewrite the article accordingly. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Originally was going to be two articles, one - Libyan Hostage Situation and two the biography. But how can we prove notability without telling the story? If the two articles are split, will the biography be deleted? Or merged into the first article? [example] Guidance welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC) — Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If the article were to be renamed, I'd replace the introduction and delete the last two sections. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've learned about the Libyan hostage situation from this article, more so than i had before. Robin Plummer has been somewhat of a trusted ombudsman between the public and the national media on this subject in teh years since 1984. As such this article seems fair, forthright, and should remain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossp10 (talk • contribs) — Rossp10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Currently this article is a WP:COATRACK; it's really about the Libyan Hostage Situation of 1984. It should either be renamed or merged somewhere (since there appears to be encyclopedic content supported by real references). Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Telling the story to prove notability is a WP:COATRACK? The articles have now been split. BUT Robin Plummer is NOT a WP:ONEEVENT, unless you count any other political hostages who have pages on wiki as being a ONE EVENT under the same rules. I agree with the unsigned comment which questions whether being kidnapped and held as a political prisoner is not enough for wiki. Robin Plummer, like John McCarthy (journalist) has also written a book on his experiences that is selling well internationally. Also like [John McCarthy (journalist)]], speaks publicly and is sought by the media as a "trusted ombudsman" on the subject as well. Gailsedotes (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is both a Creative professional and a Victim of a high profile crime also seen as spokesman for the group of hostages Gailsedotes (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)— Gailsedotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep If another hostage such as John McCarthy can have an entry I see no reason why Plummer should not. Surf the net to try to find historical references to the Libyan Hostage Situation so called and you will find almost none. The wiki entry comment about airbrushed from the history books seems to be the case. Now that Qadafi has gone, it seems to me appropriate for this act of international terrorism to be exposed (the hostage taking), and the heroic efforts of Plummer and the others to see the light of day. If you google Plummer, there are liberal references to other good stuff that he has done and informed comment that he has made - that's notable, and not just one event. I say keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnFqwerty (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— JohnFqwerty has made no other edits.

Unfortunately most of that does not relate to Wikipedia's inclusion requirements. Concerning the existence of an article on another hostage, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Wikipedia articles do not exist in order to "expose" facts or to help them "see the light of day". In fact, if that is the purpose of the article then it is a reason for deletion, not for keeping, as it is using Wikipedia for promotion. To sate that there exist references to "good stuff that he has done and informed comment that he has made", without actually telling us what or where those references are, is no help at all. References need to be verifiable. I have searched, and found no reliable sources to indicate any significance except for this one event. (If using a Google search, as you suggest, it is necessary to be careful to exclude spurious hits relating to other people of the same name, such as the artist Robin Plummer, former dean of University of Brighton Faculty of Arts, and Robin Plummer the baptist minister, of New River Church.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A person who has appeared in the news in connection with one event. Otherwise a perfectly ordinary non-notable engineer/management consultant. (The article states that he is also a novelist. However, I have been unable to find any source for this anywhere. Even the article does not actually name any novel he has written.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Response: JamesBWatson, Actually it does: Section 1:A Brush With Madness. The book "A Brush With Madness" is an eyewitness account written by Robin Plummer and [First two hits on Amazon] and 5th on Google (for Robin Plummer) this article [[4]]. Google search the title of the book, 5 out of 10 links go 1 - directly to the book site, facebook page for the book articles about the book's publication... Also searching Robin Plummer returns the book site and the second hit on Google for the book title is this: Robin Plummer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Plummer Jump to A Brush With Madness‎: The book "A Brush With Madness" is an eyewitness account written by Robin Plummer of his real life experience of the ... Gailsedotes (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"An eyewitness account written by Robin Plummer of his real life experience" is not a novel. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am writing in support of my own Wiki entry. I hope it is not regarded as unethical. Someone today pointed out that Chelsey Sullenberger has a Wiki entry. "All" he did was land an aeroplane on water and save the lives of 155 people. I believe that there is no other recorded incident of an aeroplane landing on water and not breaking up. It was an incredible feat, and made history. In that respect Sullenberger is notable. He is notable for only one event in history. It is worth pointing out that Sullenberger was thrown into a situation not of his making, which by skill and determination he survived. He did not set out to make history. I was thrown into a situation not of my making, which by skill and determination I survived. I did not set out to make history. But it is a fact that the Libyan Hostage Situation made history as the first of it's kind of hostage situations in modern times, and set a precedent and explored, by the admission of the then Foreign Secretary, wholly new territory for the British Government. If Sullenberger's Wiki entry should go unchallenge, then so I believe should mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Plummer (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Robin Plummer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article will be judged on its own merits, and the existence of other articles with no more merit is irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make changes, Mr Plummer is noted both in Terry Waite's autobiography, Taken on Trust and Kate Adie's The Kindness of Strangers. The BBC regard him as an expert to comment upon hostage and Libyan affairs. Novelist is the wrong choice of word to describe him, author would be more appropriate.SixRussell (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — SixRussell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Libyan Hostage Situation 1984 (or maybe we can come up with a better title for that article). There are claims above that Mr Plummer has notability as an author, but no evidence has been presented of any significant coverage of his book in independent reliable sources, so we a left with a situation where his only claim of notability is as one of several people involved in that "situation", meaning that the best way to present our coverage of him is as part of that article. I note that the book is published by "A Brush With Madness Ltd",[5] which pretty clearly means that it is self-published, with a strong implication that this article was created to promote the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article did have the Libyan Hostage Situation 1984 content included but was told it was then a WP:COATRACK... Did ask if I split the articles if it would then be redirected and have asked for guidance and received none.Gailsedotes (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry but I totally disagree, I think Mr Plummer's story needs to be heard by the general population - yes he wrote a book, but so did many others about their situation. Mr Plummer's book goes into issues such as torture and beatings, I have read his book and am disappointed that I couldn't find more information on wiki about him, this is the first place I would look. Mr Plummer despite being 25 years out of date continues to be in the media spotlight. The BBC always give his view of events when anything libyan or hostage related comes up. I would be up for a new entry with much more factual based data, however if it came to this entry or no entry I will go with this entry!SixRussell (talk) 23:48, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Tree (song)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:SONG. Non-notable band, ~~hasn't charted.~~ Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ A9 --♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 10:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forget what I wrote.

Facepalm--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 11:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the chart position. The song is possibly notable but I can't find much information about it. Peter E. James (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the last bit, nice research. Don't know if that is a high enough charting to show notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Absent a better target, I think it should be merged to Peter Lawlor's entry in Line-up section of Stiltskin. I don't think it merits its own entry, but it did chart decently, and had a larger but undefined audience from the ad campaign. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:38, 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, Tone 17:32, 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001 United Kingdom general election result in Essex[edit]

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

Election results for the county of Essex are largely irrelevant as MP's elected there sit in the British House of Commons, and there is no further devolved legislature for Essex which makes the results notable (unlike the results in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which are of note following devolution). Jonesy1289 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not WP:OR. It is not irrelevant, because the results themselves are notable (they are recorded in numerous secondary and tertiary sources).t I understand the point about Essex not being devolved. However given that Wikipedia has an article breaking down the results into regional maps anyway, an article which drills down further is not of itself inappropriate. doktorb _words^deeds 21:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The results for all English counties are recorded in numerous secondary and tertiary sources too - it doesn't make them any more relevant when considering the constitutional arrangements which currently exist in the UK.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons given above:

--Jonesy1289 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The articles are essentially WP:OR - an aggregation of individual constituency results for an area which bears no relationship to the body (national parliament) for which the elections took place. There may be a case for summarising all the results, for the different elections over time, in a new section at Essex#Politics, but these articles as they stand are unnecessary. In theory, if the approach were applied consistently it would lead to the creation of hundreds of unnecessary new articles - one for each election in history, for each county in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the articles are easily salvageable by adding sources. Dualus (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For me the issue isn't about referencing (though the articles are clearly formed based on the information in other articles) but because having articles for counties is irrelevant in the scheme of British politics, particularly when considering devolution. Moreover, counties are an irrelevance in UK general elections as there aren't county-wide seats. Also, as noted above, we would potentially have hundreds of articles for each county for every single election, and there is no benefit to this.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork of the per-electorate pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 6 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle Chess[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Clearly the inventor is highly notable, but that does not mean everything he has done is as well. No source is given to show the notability of this form of the chess game. SyG (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although Kasparov introduced "Advanced chess", I cannot see evidence that he invented "Freestyle chess". Without independent coverage of the variant, notability is unlikely. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to [[Garry Kasparov]. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any sources that confirm or indicate Kasparov's involvement with "Freestyle chess"? If not, a merge would be highly misleading. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:11, 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. Tone 17:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SecuRegister[edit]

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

Article about a product. The article lacks reliable sources so is unverifiable and the notability of SecuRegister has not been established. Contested prod, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 18:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertizing and non-notable product. Joefridayquaker (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:45, 6 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. Tone 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Holmes[edit]

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

Has had one acting role in Sabrina the Teenage Witch (two episodes according to IMDB), this is not sufficient to meet WP:ENT. January (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hardly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.112.79 (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While WP:HOTTIE might apply,[6] 2 episodes in one series some 14 years ago and then nothing,[7] fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG.[8] Good luck to you Ally... but buh-bye. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not nearly enough notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; no coverage found in reliable sources. Subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Gongshow ^Talk 17:11, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Pino[edit]

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

A review of available sources suggests quite strongly that this person fails WP:PROF and is not notable by other standards. His academic work certainly doesn't merit an article, and it's clear we're getting one because of the headlines he has garnered for having anti-American and anti-Israeli views. So, it's pure WP:COATRACK and should be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially an WP:ATTACK page on a living person who does not meet WP:PROF. nableezy - 18:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on Google/Google Books/Google News searches does not meet WP:PROF and I can't identify any other category of notability this person would fall under. MisterRichValentine (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was never arguing he meets WP:PROF, but he does meet the basic notability requirements of any individual, WP:BASIC. He's discussed in a number of books - for example:

[9]

[10]

[11] (note, he also goes by "Assad Pino" and "Julio Cesar Pino").

His book Family and Favela is mentioned in these distinguished works:

[12]

[13]

and mini-reviewed here:

[14]

A extensive list of reviews on Pino's book can be found in Pino's CV [15]

And as for the WP:Coatrack concerns, I would keep in mind that I'm using entirely reliable secondary sources and absolutely nothing opinionated or inflammatory. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having reviewed Plot Spoiler's links, where are the sources which describe the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG requires? These are passing mentions, if that, and don't describe the subject in any detail at all. Ravenswing 01:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're defining "detail" far too stringently. All the sources describe the subject in detail. I don't see how you can deny that, particularly in these two sources [16] [17]. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would challenge that any of the google book sources would be appropriate for a BLP. nableezy - 03:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, FoxNews, USA Today, ADL. There's been significant coverage of him in reliable third-party sources, including a debate over whether his behavior is acceptable in the United States.—Biosketch (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not biographical coverage. It might support an article something like Rantings of Julio Pino, but it's not suitable for a BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources aren't biographical coverage, they're passing news coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news and academic sources employed the article range from 1999 to 2011. This is not simply passing coverage. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable asan academic, and I'm reluctant to conclude the negative material important enough to be the justification for an article. I think this doesn't meet the standards for BLP. If he were a public figure it would be different, but I think this almost qualifies for G10 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 15:19, 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 keep - nomination malformed. Raul654 (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Saturday Comes Sunday[edit]

As per the discussion page, this page does not have enough notability. It rather resembles original research, with suspicious claims not having any backing in the web. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The stated deletion reasons are flatly false. The term gets 38,000 hits on the internet and 74 hits on Google books, hence it is notable. Every single statement in the article is referenced to a reliable source - there's nothing there that is original research. This whole nomination is basically drive-by AFD tagging because the nominatior doesn't like the subject matter. Furthermore, this nomination wasn't even made correctly - it was not listed on AFD, and I wasn't notified. If nothing else changes, I'll be closing this nomination shortly. Raul654 (talk) 14:16, 1 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 both. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zann Gill[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the nominator doesn't mind--I've added an article to this AfD:

I think it is unfair to this individual to have this article up with these tags. So I have deleted the article. If you decide the article merits restoration, then restore with only one tag: "please help us improve this article tag." Note connections of Zann Gill to two other articles: Collaborative Intelligence and the Microbes Mind Forum.---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ark2 (talk • contribs)
- Sorry, no. You haven't deleted it; you blanked it. I undid your edit, since you're not the only editor anymore, and there's an AfD right now. Let it takes it course. BTW, I propose that participants in the discussion also look at Microbes Mind Forum, which I'm going to add to the discussion here. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. No credible indication of notability for either. The article on collaborative intelligence has extensively been edited by the editor who created these two articles and is in urgent need of attention from an expert (contains rather nonsensical statements: somebody "developing" species of bacteria, bacteria colonies "more numerous than the population of the Earth", etc). --Crusio (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy moly. Where does one even start cleaning that up? Drmies (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Crusio, I smell a COI there and here. Zann Gill is all over this, as the references for that CI article make (or made) clear. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, a "slight whiff" of COI... Hope your ax didn't get too much blunted. I didn't dare start on it, it was too daunting. Good job! --Crusio (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to complete lack of independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:49, 6 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. Tone 17:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lake numbers of Finland[edit]

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

Lack of notability. By all appearances, a private numbering scheme established at the non-notable wiki "jarviwiki.fi" (apparently connected with Finnish Environment Institute, but no independent coverage, at least not in languages other than Finnish); seems almost like an elaborate joke. Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it's a joke, but I have never heard of such numbering scheme, and it is not used at least by the National Land Survery. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory. As a sidenote, I can't help to wondering how many tax euros were wasted in making the jarviwiki.fi site – while it has elaborate structure it appears virtually unused. --hydrox (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to my own comment: [18]: The site is rather new. It was apparently inaugurated only in September. It might be that it is not yet publicized, which might explain low participation from the public. --hydrox (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arbitrary naming of non-inhabited places. If reliable sources come to light that that this is an official numbering system, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:51, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahauddeen Nadwi[edit]

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

This religious scholar appears to fail WP:PROF due a lack of verifiable sources as to academic impact and not holding the highest appointed post at the institution. I find no sources under this name (or variations of it) at GBooks, GScholar or GNews. Note, in consideration of this change which appears false when compared to the citation given, other claims made must be considered suspect where unsourced. Fæ (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ACADEMIC for lack of multiple WP:RS coverage. Happy Editing! — 70.21.5.28 (talk · contribs) _{16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Comment. The subject is the vice-chancellor of Darul Huda Islamic University,[19] and my understanding is that Indian universities follow the English tradition whereby the vice-chancellor is the most senior academic position, with the chancellor being a figurehead. Is that not the case for this particular university? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As he is supposed to have written 14 books I am surprised that his name "Bahauddeen Muhammad Nadwi" or "Bahauddeen Nadwi" has no matches in Google Books or Worldcat, presumably because they have no ISBN. If the title "Vice Chancellor" has the same meaning as it would do in other Universities (remember, this Academy takes its students from primary school age, so it is unusual for an institution called "University") then I find it hard to understand why no international academics appear to reference his work. --Fæ (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking references. There's a slight chance that this is a real university and this person is a doing real academic work there publishing under a different name (or the same name in a different script/variant); if evidence of such comes to light, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as head of a university. There is no adequate central catalog o r other listing for Indian books, so the failure to find these is no argument for nonexistence. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, the nomination makes no claim of non-existence but there has been at least one false claim made by the creator of this article. --Fæ (talk) 07:46, 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 merge to Movember. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

No-Shave November[edit]

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

Came up in 2006 and was deleted as a joke article. As far as I can tell, it appears to be a joke article again. I do find a little use of the term "No-shave November," especially in campus newspapers, but I don't know as it's enough to confer notability. I can see an argument being made for cutting out all the "humorous" parts and leaving as a stub to be built on, but I thought it better to defer to the wisdom of the crowd. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per lack of third-party sources, maybe just mention it in the Movember article. I was cutting back the obviously jokey stuff at the same time as this AfD went up, but it looks like much of the remaining material isn't intended to be serious (the "Celebrities Who Participate in No Shave November" list is just noshember.com saying "we noticed that this celebrity had a beard in November"). --McGeddon (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep / merge after the jokes were taken out and sources added. Most of the sources seem to use the term completely interchangeably with Movember, though ("today marks the start of No Shave November, or Movember", "Movember – or ‘no shave November’ – launches today", "Here's how No Shave November or Movember works"). --McGeddon (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: I've done a hard prune of the article, removing jokiness and unsubstantiated claims. I've also added what references I was able to find after further digging. I think it's a closer call now than I did. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The fact that it's not exactly a widely organized thing (usually organized on a small, local level) makes me hesitate from a full keep, but from what I can tell it is at least rather widely known enough to keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly is a phenomenon I see around Facebook and such; this article has enough sources to support any claims to notability. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 14:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a documented phenomenon, and though it hasn't achieved complete awareness, chances are most people on US campuses will know what this is — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpectralPoet (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has six edits, all to just two pages; closing administrator should disregard vote. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is becoming rather widespread. A Google News search (http://www.google.com/search?q=no+shave+november) brings up references from The Washington Post, Daily Beast, Fox News, etc. It's pretty thoroughly documented by this point. Happinessiseasy (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Movember 86.41.33.195 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IP address has edited only this page; closing administrator should disregard vote. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Movember; the two are pretty much alike enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the writer or this article and I originally was going to merge this with Movember but Movember only grows mustaches for charities, which is much different than not shaving at all. They actually have rules about only having mustaches. I can see your points about removing the jokiness, and sticking to the hard facts. I think that is wise and if left up, I will continue to add to the article with mentioned guide lines. Doing a search for No-Shave November in twitter brings up several thousand mentions. I would think this helps with the argument of how this IS a wide spread article. Dsm4gsus (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has 36 edits and, more importantly, has only edited the article in question and the November article; closing administrator should disregard vote. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep / merge per McGeddon. — Status {^talk_contribs 02:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The two are similar enough that they should be considered two forms of the same event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skydog892 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the fifth most trending topic on Twitter yesterday. So, yes... It is indeed notable. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 18:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a reason to keep at all. The "most trending topics" on Twitter frequently include random jokes and memes which are clearly transient and not notable. You have to come up with actual coverage treating the topic or phenomenon in depth. Take a look at today's "trending topics," which include "#ThingsICantLiveWithout," "#DoctorsBetterThanConradMurray," and "Twitter THUGGIN." These are all silly jokes. I have no idea how anyone can seriously say their "trending" topic entitles them to articles. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Movember does occur during the same month, but this does not mean they are they same event. Movember is clearly described as being an event for men to promote awareness for men's health issues. No-Shave November is much broader, and encompasses charities of all kinds, is for men AND women, and is not only focused around the event. Oftentimes it's simply much bigger than the event, it's about general "unkemptness" for what ever reason the participant chooses during the month of November. A general lack of grooming of hair on the face and body is the best way to describe how to participate in No-Shave November, not just growing a mustache. In fact, if you were to just grow a mustache, it would be against the general guidelines of No-Shave November. This is a worldwide phenomenon that is common knowledge and is more than worthy of it's own wikipedia page. Spudicus123 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User has three edits, including to this page; closing administrator should disregard vote. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No-shave November is something that everyone is doing now-a-days. Not for the sole fact that it's trendy but most people now know what the cause is(previously stated by other people). There is no reason for this page to be delete. There is a cause for it. Keep the cause going! Haven't shaved in 4 days :). <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.214.250 (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IP address has only edited this page; closing administrator should disregard vote. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the content is garbage and a "keep per twitter / facebook" comment simply indicates that the author doesn't understand what we're creating here, a redirect will at least hopefully get rid of some of the noise here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No Shave November is not a joke people have raise tens of thousands of dollars for cancer awareness and research. Please don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imegre (talk • contribs) 17:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has four edits; closing administrator should disregard vote; see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RTrivial and non-notable, with very borderline references and promotional content--and the arguments for keep here amount to a desire for promotion. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No Shave November is not a joke. Mokupuni (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has two edits; closing administrator should disregard vote. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No-Shave November is serious and should be taken seriously. This page should _not_ be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.3.9 (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IP address has less than 10 edits; closing administrator should disregard vote. Neutrality^talk 03:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial, non-notable meme; a classic case of recentism ("Articles created on flimsy, transient merits"). No significant coverage treating subject in depth in reliable sources. (And no, a single blog post mentioning it in passing on the Washington Post does not suffice). If it must be kept, merge/redirect to Movember. Neutrality^talk 03:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: I think it has permeated the collegiate cultural milieu. For the record, I observed no-shave November in '09 and 10; this year I'm observing Movember Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I do think that some of the keep votes have somewhat weak bases, I would much prefer they be challenged on that basis and I strongly disagree with Neutrality's assertion that the IP addresses and user accounts who have low edit counts should have their opinions discounted. Participating in AfD discussions is not a privilege to be earned above an arbitrary edit count. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gotta agree with you on that. He's attempting to discount almost half the votes in the AFD; perhaps using the NOTAVOTE tag would have been more appropriate. What's he going to do next, say I can't vote because I tried growing a mustache once? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:04, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Payne (sculptor)[edit]

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

Does not meet any criteria for WP:NOTE, WP:GNG, or WP:BIO. References cited are from local publications and non-notable websites. No important results in google search including books and news. MisterRichValentine (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real notability. Vincelord (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Add some relevant information to article. Interesting subject which need expand. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. Work quality. (talk) 19:45, 5 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 merge to Day of Seven Billion. Tone 17:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danica May Camacho[edit]

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

it is a just born baby, what will the article content be next? Does she breast feed? How many dipers she uses per day? Source says: «Previous children picked out at birth by the UN to mark world population milestones have complained that the international body forgot about them later in life», and thus we should expect just that and not presume any future notability for this baby. Nabla (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Day of Seven Billion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Pretty much a really trivial article and has little long-term historical importance. HurricaneFan 25 18:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a second stub had been created at Danica Camacho, which I have WP:BOLDly converted to a redirect to this one. Both redirects are worth retaining, even if the child does not merit her own article: I can just imagine a future quiz question "Who was Danica (May) Camacho?", which WP needs to be able to answer. PamD 18:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Merge to Day of Seven Billion: obvious WP:BLP1E and, on top of that, there is no WP:RS that this person is even any more notable than any number of other babies that various media declared a "seven billionth" and other media then repeated coverage of. --Closeapple (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very slight merge to Day of Seven Billion. While obviously it is impossible to know which birth brought the world up to a population of 7 billion, there isn't even just one baby chosen as the international symbolic 7 billionth person. As indicated here and here, there were candidates designated in India, the UK, the USA, and three in Russia. If someone ever sets "Who is Danica May Camacho?" in a pub quiz, the answer would have to be "The Philippines' candidate to be the symbolic 7 billionth person in the world"; if the answer left out the words "... Philippines' candidate to be the symbolic ..." and just said "the 7 billionth person in the world", it would be the wrong answer. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Day of Seven Billion, matching Adnan Mević and Matej Gašpar. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Day of Seven Billion, adding a section describing each of the symbolic babies by country. Buggie111 (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Day of Seven Billion; if there was something there to merge, I'd suggest a merge, but I don't see it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:28, 3 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. It's a keep. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate title. Tone 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Song for a special occasion[edit]

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

The article is based on the mistaken idea that because the Danes have a concept of "a song for a special occasion" then other cultures must too. There are of course no references to support this - links to pages about birthday songs, graduation songs etc but not to anything about a wider concept. Fails WP:RS andy (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move. This is a case of poor translation. The Danish article actually starts off by calling it a uniquely Danish tradition. This source reveals that the English term is "occasional song"; the article should be moved either to that or to the Danish Lejlighedssang and rewritten, but there is demonstrably RS; the Danish article cites an entire book on the lejlighedssang, and this and this are academic articles about it. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article was poorly written and mistitled. I have done a brief rewrite for Wikipedia style. There are more sources for this. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above sources, but move to occasional song. Moving to to Lejlighedssang in the English Wikipedia doesn't quite seem right but is another option if the term is more widely-spread among some English-speakers. §everal⇒|Times 17:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KyWiki[edit]

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

There's no evidence of notability provided (and I couldn't find any) for this new iOS app, which seems to have first been released in September 2011. Yaron K. (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This is unambiguous advertising: a personal knowledge management application designed for easy and fast information gathering and retrieval.... every note can be easily enriched with image and style with the MediaWiki syntax.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling suggests they simply do not exist. Msnicki (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources mean this is unverifiable and does not demonstrate it meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Sparthorse (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, this an advert article that does not meet GNG. Created by an SPA as spam. Dialectric (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:57, 6 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. Tone 17:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Ross[edit]

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

NDP candidate in 2011 Federal election. Does not meet notability requirements. Recommend Delete and Redirect to New Democratic Party of Canada candidates, 2011 Canadian federal election. Suttungr (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate who doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN can still meet another notability guideline, such as WP:ACADEMIC — specifically, criterion #6: The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution. While the article certainly needs improvement, as a former president of a university she is notable enough in principle to have an independent article regardless of whether she won or not when she subsequently ran as an election candidate. Keep and improve. Also, please note that she was not a candidate in the federal election back in May, but in the provincial election earlier this month — so if this were to be redirected, the appropriate target would be Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, not the federal list. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. A former President of a University seems notable enough for mine. Article could do with some expansion though. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Bearcat. Algoma University (1200 students) is not a major institution. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any properly chartered university, regardless of the size of its student body, is "major" enough for the guideline if valid sources can be found. Wikipedia does not apply arbitrary size cutoffs to its inclusion rules — the "major" distinction is meant to kick out private "career colleges" and unaccredited degree mills, not to separate real public universities into "large enough" and "not large enough" piles. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have something to back up your interpretation? Because I'm not seeing it in WP:ACADEMIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarity with actual past practice and actual standing precedent, ya think maybe? Better yet, you don't suppose maybe I might even have been directly involved in drafting the notability guidelines in the first place? Bearcat (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get snippy. I just asked a simple question - which you haven't really answered. Evidently you didn't contribute to the WP:Civility guidelines. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If you think that was uncivil I'd hate to see what you'd call it when someone actually crossed that line. And yes, I did answer the question. Bearcat (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Has had coverage in multiple reliable sources, including the Sault Star, the Sudbury Star, the Toronto Star, and the Ottawa Citizen. I've added multiple citations just now. I note from the sources that her notability is not so much for her political candidacy, but mainly for her presidency of Algoma. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wondering why the person who started this page was not notified that this article is being proposed for deletion? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As pointed out by Paul Erik, the subject appears to meet the general notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable as a former University president. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:04, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

- NOTE: first AFD is for something unrelated to this band.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not appear to have independent notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 10:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does this fail WP:MUSIC, exactly? --Gwern (contribs) 14:54 31 October 2011 (GMT)
Speedy Keep easily passes WP:MUSICBIO... multiple albums released by major labels, made it to the top 40 in a national chart, weak article but clearly notable.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Makai (musician). The article clearly meets WP:MUSIC. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:33, 1 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. Courcelles 23:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solypsis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no real notability shown for this bio. has a lot of sources but none are reliable sources with significant coverage. sourcing has a mix of shops, wikipedia, listings, facebook, no mention of subject, nothing with significant coverage. I didn' find anyting significant. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficiently coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 6 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. Courcelles 23:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Vomit Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no real notability shown for this label. sourced by passing mentions, listings, myspace, nothing with significant coverage. I didn' find anyting significant. nothing satisfying WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing mentions are not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:00, 6 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. Tone 17:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Sorrells[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any notability for this topless dancer acquitted of murder. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. In addition to the source provided in the article, the subject's acquittal was also covered in the January 31, 1974 issue of Jet [20], and the facts of the case were tawdry enough that it might have been a subject of public attention at the time. However, I couldn't find any other coverage to show this case was actually a source of continuing and substantial interest. In the absence of evidence like that, I'd agree that this isn't enough to justify an article. (By the way, if such coverage is found and the article is kept, a change of title to something like Dirty old man killing might be considered to move the focus from the acquitted defendant to the possibly notable homicide.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, parochial murder case that fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not News, and BLP as well, since she was acquitted. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:12, 6 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. Tone 17:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boobs on Bikes[edit]

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

Barely disguised promo for a minor non-notable event. Biker Biker (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs a tidy-up and de-spam but the event itself is notable (obnoxious, but notable) and the article cites sources. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Unfortunately, as odious as it is, it is probably notable. Needs a major cleanup to remove the self-promotional dross. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article meets the WP:GNG, for example 110 exact matches on the NZ Herald website[21]. I disagree with the nominator's rationale, most of the content details opposition to the event, and besides tone isn't a reason to delete. XLerate (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, a required cleanup notwithstanding, the article is clearly notable. Schwede 66 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, was extensively discussed in the media, and the article is about a series of major events with many, many thousands of spectators. Nonwithstanding any problems with the article quality itself, the topic is clearly notable. And because some people already felt the need to add their moral judgement into the debate, I will for my part go on record that I do not think there is anything "obnoxious" or "odious" about bared breasts and scantily clad men, even in the promotion of commercial pornography. Ingolfson (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, AFD is not for cleanup. — Cirt (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a pornographer trolling conservative portions of the media for puritanical coverage of his sales event is not notable, even when some of them rise to the bait. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP notability guidelines are not that prescriptive and WP is not censored. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event that is promoted it not very notable but the promotional Boob on Bikes itself is very notable. I will go on the record as being so damned liberal that it not only makes me blush but I am making that libertine Marquis de Sade turn in his grave!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:02, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Ballout[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, A7 declined despite the fact that the article doesn't assert notability (being "Manager of Media Relations" somewhere doesn't confer notability, nor does being a "public relations official", nor does being "communications director"). Miracle Pen (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm gonna wade into this one with an open mind and see what's out there... Here's AME Info with a piece entitled "Jihad Ballout named Director of Corporate Communications, Al Arabiya." Looks like reliable new media to me. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Albawaba News on "Jihad Ballout from Al Jazeera to Al Arabiya." Carrite (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This snippet from the Amarillo Globe-News" illustrates why Ballout is important, as the public English-language face of major Arabic news outlets. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's AN INTERVIEW WITH BALLOUT in the English-language news daily Asharq Alawsat. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's reference to Ballout, the "charismatic manager of media relations" in the book Al-Jazeera: The Inside Story.... Carrite (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an INTERVIEW WITH BALLOUT conducted by CNN World. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I could go on, I'm just scratching the surface; it's clear that this is a public figure who is the subject of multiple instances of independent, substantial, published coverage. There is so much out there that I wonder if WP:BEFORE was followed by the nominator. The deficiencies of this article are no reason for deletion, the piece needs to be expanded and corrected through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of the sources you cite confer encyclopedic notability. Do we really need articles on unimportant people who happen to get interviewed by the press? Ballout gets mentioned a lot because he works in the media. That's why he seems to get a lot of press, because he's part of that press. That doesn't mean that he's intrinsically notable. The article has existed since late 2004, and despite the passage of seven years, the article is still very spare, another clue that the guy isn't notable. Miracle Pen (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand the tortured logic here. He's the subject of a lot of substantial, independent, published coverage in the press because he's part of the press and therefore our General Notability Guidelines should not apply?!?! And because the article isn't perfect that means it should therefore be deleted... That's what I'm getting. This is wrong on both counts, in terms of policy. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the GNG guideline on substantial coverage isn't satisfied. Most of the coverage of Ballout includes Ballout, but it isn't about Ballout, and so there's minimal coverage of the guy. For example, this link is an interview with Ballout, but the interview is not itself about Ballout - it's about the news media. Being interviewed does not, on its own, confer notability (or else we'd have articles on anyone who happens to get interviewed by the press). This link is just a press release, so it doesn't confer notability either; this link is the same. Google Books produces passing mentions of the guy, that doesn't confer notability either. This is why the article is so minimal after seven years - he doesn't have any notability, he just gets mentioned in press releases and gets interviewed from time to time. Miracle Pen (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact the the subject has worked for Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera means that we should discount sources published by those media outlets and others affiliated with them, but not the independent media coverage found by Carrite above, which demonstrates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, these are interviews with the subject, not interviews about the subject. Should comprehensive foreign-language sources be found, ping me on my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk)

The point is, he is being interviewed as an expert and a spokesman, and thus is established as a public figure. We needn't have "Jihad Ballout was born in a log cabin in Kentucky..." type articles to confer notability, only substantial and independently published sources indicating the significance of a subject. Carrite (talk) 18:06, 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) 00:09, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot Boxing World Tournament 2004[edit]

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

also nominating:

All fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Those wanting to keep must show long standing coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 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) 00:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Following the relisting above, all four of the "also nominating" articles - which had not been tagged for AfD - were blanked and redirected to Shoot boxing. I have restored the articles and tagged them for AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and redirect to Shoot boxing. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:13, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SelfCloud[edit]

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

Advertisement for non-notable software product. Orange Mike | Talk 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references which establish notability of this software, created by an SPA so likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 08:31, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unable to find any additional third party sources which demonstrate this software is notable. (Not even so much as an online review.) Most of the current links in the article do not provide any information about the product which could be used to develop the article. In short it does not meet WP:GNG. France3470 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 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. Discussion of the sourcing suggests that this doesn't have enough reliable sources to pass GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiak Island UFO incident[edit]

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

Previously deleted several years ago under a different title, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodiak Island UFO sighting Recreated earlier this year by the same user who created the deleted version, using mostly the same sources, but it appears to have one or two not used last time and has been rewritten somewhat, so re-nominating here instead. For the same reasons as last time, that this was barely noted by the local press, ignored by the regional press such as the Anchorage Daily News and other nearby news organs, and mostly covered by UFO fansites. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this is deleted, there are also redirects at Kodiak Island UFO, 2007 and Kodiak Island UFO Incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete - Though could be classified as very notable within the fringe, there are so few reliable sources covering this that it can't be defined as notable by WP standards. There isn't even enough local coverage to be defined as significant. Note to the closing administrator, if this is deleted it should also be removed from here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page isn't my property; I scrounged up as much as I could for related research articles as humanly possible. Who knows, maybe it doesn't have the quantity that it deserves. Since it's been more than four years, that's not likely to change. However, I am moving for it to be kept, due to the fact that it does contain invaluable information, such as the YES2 examination from authorities and how it was to be considered in relation. I recreated this several years after you went after it, Beeblebrox, and this wasn't out of rebellion or what-not; I feel there is better information contained this time and this page keeps this information well-placed and signifies Wikipedia's use as a resource. This page well-constructed, aside from the light references. However, if it were deleted, you won't see or hear of it again, since I'm not interested in some defiant edit-war. DarthBotto_talk•cont 18:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I count two refutable references. The rest are compatible and usable, so this page should only need a clean-up, not a deletion. DarthBotto_talk•cont 19:06 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I looked at the link to the YES2 page used a reference. I didn't see any mention of this incident. One of the other new sources is a page from NICAP, which also does not mention this incident. I wouldn't really consider NICAP a reliabe source anyway. So you see, this isn't about me and you, it is about the notability of this incident and whether it meets Wikipedia's minimum standards for inclusion. Nothing brought with to the table with this new version overcomes the same problems that led to the previous deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think NICAP is reliable, you could nominate that for deletion, as well. DarthBotto_talk•cont 21:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. I didn't say it wasn't notable, I said it was not a reliable source. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I admit my reply snide and off-topic. But, I want to emphasize that I don't believe bulldozing every issue encountered is the best way of addressing matters. I have dug deep and concluded that what I found when I created this newest iteration of the article is all the notability I could scrape together. If this subject cannot find enough fuel to power itself, then so be it.

I do, however, have a compromise that I hope would work for both our angles; I'd support having this event mentioned in a the fact section of the Kodiak page and having this link, as well as the other re-direct pages merged with Kodiak, so it will need only one reference. The complications of the blank, reliable sources would be gone, you won't see this article again and I'd be satisfied with seeing it mentioned as a fringe event and interesting fact. Could a compromise like that work? DarthBotto_talk•cont 04:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I afraid I don't see that as good solution. As it stands now the only reliable source that specifically mentions this incident is the article in the Daily Mirror. So, by your line of reasoning anything mentioned once in the local paper would need to be included in the article. That's not a good idea. It doesn't even appear to have much local notability given that the local paper of record apparently never mentioned it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's enough reliable source coverage here for an article to remain. — Cirt (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's one mention in the local paper. Then we have the unreliable sources, one About.com page, two mentions on UFO sites, one mention on Busika, which appears to be user generated content. Lastly we have the page from ESA which does not mention this incident in any way. So, in reality the only reliable source we have that actually mentions this topic is a single article in a local paper. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like I picked some random article from the European Space Agency. But last time I checked, the article at hand contained a critical piece of information that made local authorities investigate it. True, it's only implied in the local paper and they did not mention the UFO again, but it was a UFO incident and may be counted as such. In regards to your reply to my ultimatum, the reason I have pushed for this article's existence and not every other newspaper article is because it was a phenomenon; it was out of the ordinary and never was explained. The reason why an MSNBC article about the light show 425 miles from Roswell yesterday hasn't been created is because it was easily debunked as skydivers with flares and as attractive as it was, could not be counted as phenomenal. This, however less coverage was made available, was a phenomenon and mystery and could be open to an article. DarthBotto_talk•cont 04:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was not clear. The items that do not mention this particular incident are not relevant to this discussion because we are discussing the notability of this topic. If a reference does not actually mention this topic, it is not relevant for as far establishing notability regardless of what other merits it may have.

I understood you fine, and I can testify that the ESA YES-2 article does not mention the incident, (which is understandable). However, I do counter-balance that fact with the reasoning that it is a supportive piece that corresponded with the authorities' investigation, which was a critical part of this irregularity, as without that, this article would have as much notability as someone seeing a shooting star or satelite. And what issue does the About.com have? I mean, it is specified by the website to be supported by specialists, unless I am misunderstanding its contextual value. And you pointed NICAP out as something you don't think is a reliable reference. Is that not a subject of opinion, or is this something that Wikipedia has formally blacklisted? DarthBotto_talk•cont 07:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether NICAP is a reliable source or not is really relevant, I only mentioned it as an aside. They disbanded before this incident and so the referenced page has the same issue as the ESA page, no mention of this incident. About.com does not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, in that there does not appear to have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking, just a bunch of self-proclaimed experts. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe we've said all that needs to be said, then. DarthBotto_talk•cont 23:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one acceptable source, the Kodiak Daily Mirror, that deals with this event. That is local coverage. The other references are not WP:RS (BTW, I haven't been able to access the Claerr article, link broken. The Kodiak Daily Mirror link doesn't work for me either, but I trust that its real). The ESA reference does not address this incident. I'm not satisfied that the subject sufficiently meets the guidelines of "Significant coverage" in WP:GNG and inclusion criteria in WP:EVENT that the presumption of notability should be sustained. LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:09, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Garramone[edit]

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

Lacks the significant independent and reliable coverage from multiple sources to pass the GNG. The only coverage from reliable sources seems to be with the case of that "pregnant man" from a few years back, where he was quoted in an article (not as the doctor involved, but as an outside doctor, at that). Yaksar (let's chat) 04:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article's creator has left a long response on the talk page of this discussion. I'm not sure how or what exactly should be copied over here, but you all should probably be aware of it. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The note on the talk page is not very helpful or very realistic. Example: "Look, Dr. Garramone is the most famous surgeon probably on the planet." And it cites a dozen sources, none of them WP:RELIABLE by Wikipedia criteria. But those who wish to comment here should probably read it out of courtesy. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being quoted in one article does not make him notable, and Google News finds nothing, so he fails WP:BIO. Google Scholar finds only a single published article, cited only 26 times, so he does not qualify under WP:ACADEMIC either. --MelanieN (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient depth of coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically promotional. Even if it passedthe GNG, which it does not, it would not be a satisfactory Wikipedia article. Looking at the discussion p mentioned above, the contributor compares the appropriateness of this as an article subject with " Kardashian or Donald Trump ..." that's a classic argument— but for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of liked the Mother Teresa analogy myself. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 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 Portland, Maine mayoral election, 2011. postdlf (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Marshall[edit]

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

This article is about far too minor a politician for it to be considered important on Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix489 (talk • contribs) 2011-10-15 23:54:07‎ — Phoenix489 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep "far too minor" is not a deletion rationale. Moreover, Marshall is a city councilor in a regionally major city and there are multiple reliable sources covering him and his mayoral campaign.--TM 17:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portland, Maine mayoral election, 2011. Fails WP:POLITICIAN for a stand-alone article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 22 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) 00:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I see no guidelines violated, and a fair amount of coverage. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a close on this AFD? A SPA opened it nearly two weeks ago with no proper deletion rationale and the discussion is a no consensus to keep. Either way, it does not benefit us to keep it open any longer.--TM 03:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, sources don't appear to be anything more than WP:ROUTINE coverage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 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. Thanks, v/r - T P 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the mayoral campaign as a non notable politician.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portland, Maine mayoral election, 2011 - thanks for letting me know this page existed, makes much more sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portland, Maine mayoral election, 2011 as above. The subject simply lacks the necessary notability under WP:POLITICIAN to have a separate article. Trusilver 05:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleSlam Magazine[edit]

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

No suggestion of notability. Unable to find any independent coverage. The so-called "NASDAQ" company has no listing or any coverage, and doesn't register on any finance sites (including Bloomberg), not that being so listed would, by itself, be an indication of notability. ^Bongo_matic 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Slam Content and redirect WrestleSlam Magazine to it. The Slam Content article has sources, however the company is not listed on Bloomberg because an IPO has not been offered. Hence, the inactive next to the NASDAQ indicator. Any company that has a NASDAQ symbol is listed even if they are not public yet. Slam Content is notable enough, but WrestleSlam Magazine can be deleted or redirected to the Slam Content article. Article meets WP:COMPANY standards.

MDH326 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC) — MDH326 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete completely lacks independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Society (Whittier College)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Local fraternities and societies are not particularly notable, and these are no exception. The O's article, despite the Nixon connection, is completely unsourced. The Palmers' only reference is their page on Whittier College's website. The Franklins' only source is Chuck Elliott's history of Whittier College, which isn't independent enough of the subject. A search in Google Books and Scholar for the O's and Franklins mostly turned up fleeting references in Nixonalia; the Palmers turned up virtually nothing at all. In addition, both Franklins and Palmers have been PRODded over sourcing and notability concerns; neither has been significantly sourced since their prods. Furthermore, the Palmers and the O's both violate naming conventions. The three articles should either be nixed outright, merged into Whittier College, or (this is what I would do) merged into one article dealing with all of WC's societies. Though these articles do have some meaningful content, I don't believe three full articles are warranted for their subjects Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—agree these are non-notable. the only one with even mentions in reliable and independent sources is of course orthogonian. it's not discussed there, though, but only mentioned due to its connection with nixon. it probably deserves a sentence or two in his article (which maybe it has, i didn't look). these shouldn't be merged into the whittier college article, because they're trivial in relation to the college as a whole. i have no feelings about merging all three into one article about the societies, because i haven't looked into the notability. my feeling is that the best thing to do is delete, and if anyone wants to do a WC society article later, they should give it a shot. p.s. Purplebackpack89, your nominations here wouldn't be connected to your being an alum of oxy, would it? (kidding, of course!)— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all complete lack of independent notable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 6 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 Mystery Case Files . rediret rather then merge as unsourced and we don't merge OR. Can break back out to being a standalone when sources are available Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Case Files: Escape From Ravenhearst[edit]

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

An Unreferenced article about a forthcoming game. No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this appears to be promotional. Prod was removed without comment by the article's sole author, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 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) 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ changed to Merge into Mystery Case Files -- As it is unreferenced and about an upcoming game. However, it is part of an otherwise notable series and will surely receive enough third-party attention to assess notability once released. Salvidrim (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case a merge to the series article would also retain information about the game until there is more coverage. The article can easily be recreated once the sources arrive.--70.24.209.180 (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Salvidrim (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mystery Case Files. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric D. Alterman[edit]

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

Author of article has created spam article for Flow Corporation several times, and now has a bio article on the founder. Sources for notability aren't that great: citybizlist seems to be a PR release, CrunchBase is user-edited, he's listed at speaking at the "Television Conference"; and gets one quote in the FastCompany article. Not much turns up in gnews (note that there is a more prolific Eric Alterman who is a professor.) PROD declined, SD (as spam) was declined as well. Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. He is featured in a syndicated Reuters segment and has been featured all over the web. Article can be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.227.120 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press releases about venture capital funding do not meet WP:GNG or any criteria in WP:PEOPLE. This appears to be self-promotion, neither this person nor his startup company appear to be notable. MisterRichValentine (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources need to be independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 6 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WBGU (FM)[edit]

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

Article includes a large component of text from a nonfree website. It's been tagged as OTRS pending since 2009; such a long period of time since tagging is a good indication that no permission is really forthcoming, so this is likely to be a copyvio. Not a blatant enough case for a speedy, but blatant enough to delete at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate broadcast radio station, and a Google Books search shows coverage. If Nyttend has identified likely copyvios, then the solution is clear. If Nyttend can verify copypvio, then Nyttend should remove that content from the article, trimming it to a stub if necessary. The article can then be improved through normal editing. Deleting a article about an actual notable radio station is not a good solution to the article's shortcomings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would seem to this untrained editor that a radio station would be considered notable. Therefore, the logical solution would be to remove the offending material. Joefridayquaker (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Purge everything but the infobox I don't care how notable it is. If it's been stewing in copyvio for two years, it needs to be rebuilt from scratch. I'd still rather see it built from scratch though... Sven Manguard Wha? 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a rewrite candidate because the current version sounds like a copyvio brochure, but FCC licensed and notable. In fact, it should be taken down to a stub with frequency, infobox and format. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an FCC-licensed broadcast radio station. I've taken a hatchet to the prose in question (station history) to eliminate any copyvio concerns (which are a matter for cleanup, not AfD) and upgraded the infobox and its contents. - Dravecky (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per Nate and Dravecky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: As a licensed broadcast station, notability was never in question, and the copyvio concerns have now been addressed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an FCC-licensed station. Keep infobox and history. Get rid of the list of station personnel, please! I hate seeing that crap on articles! --Fightingirish (talk) 02:06, 4 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. discounting non-policy based arguments and ip votes. No sourcing adduced so fails GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Babble[edit]

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

Previously prodded. No indication of notability. No sources at all; some ELs but they are to a wiki, the author's site (I think), a source code example and a man page. A search turns up these links then similar results (code implementations) but nothing like a reliable source. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what is the problem of a source code example and a manpage for a widely-used piece of software, particularly the latter (if some citation of that SSH is widely used is needed, I can try to come up with one...)? Computer program, computer hardware, and related entries do not have to have academic or reliably-fact-checking journalistic citations to have reliable sources. (Otherwise, what are all those video game entries doing there? Or are you proposing that those also be deleted?) In regard to implementations of an algorithm, I note that just because some people can't read the computer code isn't an argument against it being a valid source - just because a source is in another language than English doesn't mean it's invalid. Allens (talk) 04:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, one alternative would be a merger of this and some of the other articles that talk about the conversion of numbers into hopefully-pronounceable pseudowords or similar (not sure as to the proper name for this - any idea?). Bubble Babble would then be a subset of this page. Allens (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment when you mentioned that SSH is widely used I thought (but got distracted from posting) that a merger there might then make sense, if this is not independently notable. I know nothing about SSH though, and don't see it mentioned in that article, so have no idea how it would be done or if it makes sense in the context of that article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Hmm... interesting thought. It actually makes a bit more sense to merge it into ssh-keygen, which is the program that uses Bubble Babble within SSH. (I'm still more thinking of other mergers - there is quite a bit of usage of "make something human-readable" in cryptography, from what (possibly outdated) information I have about the field. I will inquire over on WikiProject Cryptography. Allens (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page must be kept. I wonder why should I read through an ssh-keygen page if what i want to know is just the meaning of "bubble babble". Having a bubble babble page is just what I expect from an encyclopedia. the important thing is the "human readable" thing without the need of any source. I found this page useful as it is, and just wanted to let you know my idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.252.114 (talk) 22:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Snake oil (cryptography). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How in the world is it cryptographic snake oil? It isn't trying to encrypt anything - the connection to cryptography is that it's useful to help remember key signatures et al. Allens (talk) 13:30, 6 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. Procedural keep. The content of separate articles should be merged to parent articles on case-to-case basis. Tone 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legion (DC Comics)‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Legion (DC Comics)

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character as a stand-alone subject does not meet the general notability guideline since he does have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Also, there is no evidence that an article about him can have reception and significance in the real world, so any article about him can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information and therefore it is unsuitable as a topic for Wikipedia. A quick search engine test does not show anything different to presume that the character deserves a stand-alone article. Since all it has is plot referenced with primary sources, depends on original research by synthesis to generate the content and the subject is a very minor fictional character, I do not believe that a merge or a redirect are warranted. Also, as the article title has disambiguation and Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed, I do not believe that it as a likely search term or that a redirect could be justified. Jfgslo (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because all of them have the same characteristics (all contested PRODs, disambiguation in article title and some even with no sources at all) and they should be deleted as well:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that there are disambiguators attached to a title does not make an article ineligible for merge. I think an article-by-article merge discussion is more productive than this, and I can't say that I actually believe an adequate search was carried out, despite lip service: I find this on the first page of the Google Book search results for Children of Ares, a term that has a lot of false positives. Add "comics" to the search term and we get this too. That's two reliable sources, which may mean that the GNG is met, or may end up being adjudicated too trivial--either way, that sort of an outcome cannot be reasonably argued in a mass nomination like this. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, subject to appropriate merger discussions. The nom's boilerplate assertions (largely the same he posts in every pop culture/fiction-related AFD) are incorrect and unsupported. It is not true that these can ever only be "plot-only descriptions," because information is always available on creators and publication history, and in many cases I'd wager good money that there is substantive history out there, particularly for those characters from the Golden Age of comics such as Wonder Boy. Regardless, the solution to plot-only description is either to add non-plot information, or to ensure that the plot is otherwise properly contextualized within a real world framework. The nom is also incorrect in asserting that reliance on primary sources in and of itself constitutes original research. All of which leaves us only with problems that can be addressed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Jclemens who points out that aspects of the nomination are not true and do not accurately describe all dozen plus articles listed. These characters are not of the same status in comic book history and should not be haphazardly lumped together as such. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: because merge discussions are needed, and because they seem to me to be different enough cases not to be lumped together Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with nominator that most or perhaps all of these subjects are not notable enough to merit their own WP entries. I also agree that their titles "name (DC Comics)" and so on make for unlikely redirects. However, I think that for most of these subjects, there is a good merge target for a heavily condensed version of these generally cruft-heavy articles. A few should probably be straight deleted, a few might actually merit their own entry, at least with a bit of work. But it's a rather dauntingly big list to work through, much less to get AfD consensus on each one. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:28, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Israel (Kinston, North Carolina)[edit]

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

Article was deproded, yet the issue was not addressed. I still have been unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability of this organization. Apparently based upon this diff [22] others have also had a tough time locating any reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit I was careless in the note I left when I deprodded, and I apologize for it. . It's very rare there are not some kind of sources for local institutions, though not necessarily sources for notability. In fact, right after I left my note, Arxiloxos did find a good 3rd party reference & added it to the article. It was listed for AfD nevertheless. We accept the coverage in specialized encyclopedias as showing notability . I'll try to look for another to confirm it. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local religious congregation, fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was the editor who restored the prod, but my concern was more that this was a hoax; recently a couple of other hoax synagogue articles have been discovered and deleted. This institution is over 100 years old, and is described at length in reliable secondary sources, which have now been found. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Age and duration of the congregation are a strong claim of notability, and source from Encyclopedia of Southern Jewish Communities provides appropriate support. Alansohn (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local religious congregation, fails WP:ORG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Additional sources have been added. IZAK (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this is an important congregation that has existed since 1903 and spans the history of the Jews in Kinston, North Carolina. Relatively smaller communities may not be "glamorous" but they are important parts of the history of those areas, in this case North Carolina. More WP:RS have been added and the article has been improved. IZAK (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as more sources have been added, I would have to say that this is most definitely a keep. A synagogue that old, with sources is surely something Wiki can include. Yossiea ^(talk) 00:04, 8 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. Tone 17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winx club season 5[edit]

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

It's just speculation about the 2012 season of a TV show. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The majority of this article consists of rumors and speculation, not verifiable information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 07:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.WP:Crystal The season hasn't even been made or shown yet, to my knowledge. Isn't this the second or third time that we've had to delete this due to overly enthusiastic fans trying to keep adding it? Is there something that can be done to prevent this until the next season is actually made? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete as per WP:Crystal. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:32, 6 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. Tone 17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Amatya[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. References given are trivial mentions rather than significant coverage. noq (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy delete. Attending a conference does not give one notability. Yaron K. (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is claerly not notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to meet the standards for notability among academics Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails pretty much everything. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:36, 6 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 have completely discounted the SPA and IP votes. Appears to be a BLP without RS. The delete arguments are therefore the policy based ones and coincide with community expectations concerning the requirement for BLPs to have RS. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kaur (Jermakov)[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); (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of article deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Max Kaur from a WP:SPA. The article name has been changed in an apparent attempt to escape watchlists. No reason for the DAB qualifier other than evading people watching the article. Additional reference has been added that does not appear to mention him but most of the article is behind a paywall. noq (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a historian, your talking don`t have any sense. a) articel on ru.wikupedia b) articel et.wikipedia c) The Baltic Times articles are ABOUT mr Max Kaur. "The article name has been changed in an apparent attempt to escape watchlists." WHAT? Hey you ! a) articel on ru.wikupedia b) articel on et.wikipedia. I warning you: next step is call to Flordia. User:Marbella112 (User talk:Marbella112) 03:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was the (Jermakov) added? There is no current page at Max Kaur which is also the name used on the other wikis. It is a very strange disambiguation and no disambiguation is needed. What do you mean by call Flordia (sic)? noq (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Why was the (Jermakov) added?" Because in England living another Max Kaur and ouer Max Kaur birth name was Jermakov. User:Marbella112 (User talk:Marbella112) 23:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, why and how did you also include warning templates dating from the 2009 version of the page when you created this version? noq (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look..."the 2009 version" do not exist... (cur | prev) 15:52, 6 September 2008‎ MVK2009 (talk | contribs)‎ (1,887 bytes) (← Created page with '== MAX KAUR == Image:Näidis.jpg Max Kaur (was born on December, 9th 1969 Tallinn, Estonia, EU) Estonian politician, for a long time has been the adviser of...'). I mistakenly put a warning temples because this was copy /past error from another article, not from "Max Kaur". Marbella112 (Marbella112) 23:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The notability of this politician has not been established for English language version of Wikipedia with reliable, verifiable sources. The guidelines for notability are not universal, as consensus is established by the users on each project; therefore inclusion on one language Wikipedia does not automatically justify inclusion in all. Seaphoto^Talk 02:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Seaphoto, and WP:VRS. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article are to reliable sources that he is a city councilor of Tallin, the capital city of Estonia. To quote WP:POLITICIAN, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Kaur fulfills this requirement. There are also plenty of news sources to be found about him and some are not so nice. To the nominator, the article was deleted three years ago and alot can change as Kaur was elected in 2009. Being a SPA in an AfD discussion is relevant, but not for a nomination. Being a SPA means neither good nor bad as we must take into what the article says and not who wrote it when nominating an article. Bgwhite (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only mentioned the SPA as the page was recreated from an oldre version complete with warning tags about POV and COI and SPA was mentioned in the original debate. It was not the reason for the nomination. noq (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article about a small-time politician, who is known mainly for self-promotion on the Internet. This article is almost certainly self-created as well. --Sander Säde 06:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sander Säde`s opinion is a politically motivated opinion. Max Kaur is not a small-time politician. Search form Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.209.239 (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On what basis do you conclude Sander Sade's opinion is politically motivated? noq (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See about his involvement : "Rein Lang". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.209.239 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 November 2011

Considering I'm about as apolitical as it is possible to get while still breathing and don't care about Rein Lang, what is your point? Googling for Max Kaur gives a handful of newspaper articles where he is just mentioned and some "..has relationship with.., ..lost virginity.." type yellow journalism garbage. However, you'll find that there is Max Kaur's blog, Max Kaur's Twitter, Max Kaur's Facebook, Max Kaur's Youtube videos and so forth... but next to nothing about him as a politician. --Sander Säde 07:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sander Säde: "nothing about him as a politician." Really? http://www.ohtuleht.ee/252200; http://www.ekspress.ee/news/paevauudised/eestiuudised/max-kaur-sobrad-kogunevad-tammsaare-parki-kasiinode-vastu-meelt-avaldama.d?id=27677297; http://uudised.err.ee/index.php/www.pohjarannik.ee/index.php?06171485; http://wwx.tarbija24.ee/180707/esileht/siseuudised/256129.php; http://www.just24.ee/?news=914617; http://wwx.tarbija24.ee/060707/esileht/siseuudised/270361.php; http://www.hip.ee/180207/esileht/olulised_teemad/riigikogu_2007/eesti_keskerakond/245628_foto.php; http://www.ohtuleht.ee/237151; http://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/arvamus/max-kaur-paastame-kas-voi-uhe-pere.d?id=16510913; and more - http://ise.elnet.ee/search~S1*est/?searchtype=X&searcharg=Max+Kaur&searchscope=2&SORT=D&extended=0&SUBMIT=OTSI+&searchlimits=&searchorigarg=.b1159230 Marbella112 (Marbella112) 13:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Max Kaur is a most mentioned Centre Party politician in Estonian media. MK2009: (MK2009:) 15:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Comment added by 194.106.106.146 (talk · contribs)

Keep because he's a member of the Russian Academic Society of Estonia. Also This nomination mashes several faulty assumptions together.

Violation of the COI policy is not a valid reason for deletion.
While sources are preferred in English on the English language Wikipedia, sources in Estonian are totally acceptable. - Mannextdoor:|Mannextdoor: 16.00, 3 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannextdoor (talk • contribs)

neutral please note, that this is not a voting-page. Therefor it makes no sense do add further voting-accounts to assist the single-purpose-account, who created this article. --Gf1961 (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~I am not interesting about your view. We talk about article. --Marbella112 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept, if you are not interested to hear my view. I can also accept, if you meant to say that you are not interesting in my view. Your activating of puppet-claqueurs has been adressed as useless. --Gf1961 (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mr.Max Kaur - patron of Youth Jewish Council of Estonia. --LA2011(talk) 15:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.65.84 (talk)

~~Keep~~ Mr.Kaur - chairman of the Institute of Society Development (Estonia).- MK2009 (MK2009) 15:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Comment added by 194.150.65.84 (talk · contribs)[reply]

Comment There is no need to repeatedly say Keep. However I would like you to answer the questions I asked earlier. It seems clear that the majority of Keep proponents are single purpose accounts and some could be WP:Sockpuppets. User:Marbella112 recreated the page with a copy of the originally deleted article. User:MK2009 does not appear to have made any edits that have not been deleted. Should that be User:MVK2009 - who created the original article. LA2011 does not appear to exist as an editor but added the comment from the same IP address as MK2009 just before MK2009 posted his second keep !vote. noq (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don`t know who this MK2009 is, maybe Max Kaur? And so what? These users: Bgwhite; MK2009; LA2011; Mannnextdoor; has absolutely nothing to do with Marbella 112. But I know that account "Noq" is single purpose account - delete another peoples work on Wikipedia , no single contribution from this "Noq"! Marbella112 (Marbella112) 15:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Comment added by 82.131.94.120 (talk · contribs)[reply]
Comment What? You really should try to vary the way you add things here if you are going to use different names - and you still have not explained how you independently recreated the original deleted article complete with dated warning templates. noq (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"you independently recreated the original deleted article" no, it`s orginal article from Marbella112 , look. " with dated warning templates." I made a mistake and I fixed it, look. Marbella112 (Marbella112) 20:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty obvious those SPA's are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets (Max Kaur's party has a youth section, which has been known to behave in a similar way). However, closing admin will disregard their votes in any case, as this is not a voting. And Noq, you are doing a great work patrolling new pages, keep it up. --Sander Säde 14:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that Marbella112's behaviour actually is harming Mr. Kaur's reputation in a way, even a half-witted politician would be clever enough to avoid, your explanation with misled party-youth seems quite imaginable. MK2009/MVK2009 also edit on et (Max Kaur article exclusively) and was the author of the 2008 deleted article. --Gf1961 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "MK2009/MVK2009 also edit on et (Max Kaur article exclusively) and was the author of the 2008 deleted article. " For me it is abosolutly okey, because Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves create his page himself also in Wikipedia and edit his page also. I am not MK2009/MVK2009. Marbella112 (Marbella112) 20:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who do you claim is The Estonian proesident editing Toomas Hendrik Ilves? Where did you get the original text of the deleted article? noq (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that`s correct - Ilvese create his page on Wikipedia and edit his page also. Look edit history Toomas Hendrik Ilves and media about his page. Reason : Wikipedia rule about living person Marbella112 (Marbella112) 21:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So User:Academic Challenger is the president of Estonia? As well as an administrator on the English Wikipedia? noq (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toomas Hendrik Ilves staff informed the press 2006 that they created the page and he only say what information is right by Wikipedia rule about living person. Marbella112 (Marbella112) 22:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Where did you get the original text of the deleted article? " what you're thinking specifically? Marbella112 (Marbella112) 21:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The edit that created the page. noq (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you want, but my page is nothing do with page "Max Kaur" created by MK2009/MVK2009.Marbella112 (Marbella112) 22:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that Mr Max Kaur both Estonian and European politician worthy to be presented to Wikipedia. --Johannes xz (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sander Säde : "It is pretty obvious those SPA's are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets (Max Kaur's party has a youth section, which has been known to behave in a similar way)." Where is the evidence? But nothing new about Sander Säder , look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Daniel_Case Marbella112 (Marbella112) 20:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Max Kaur, politician, deserves to be in Wikipedia because of Tallinn City Council member (remember those who have forgotten that Tallinn is one of the capitals of the European Union) manages an important committee of the Tallinn City Council --Aleksss19 (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Mr. Max Kaur involved in politics in Estonia for more than 15 years. Although Im young, but I remember Max Kaur as a politician for a long time. Since 1999 Mr. Max Kaur is working in the popular party "Centre party" in Estonia. Kaur was political advisor of the head of the party Mr. Edgar Savisaar(Estonian Prime minister from 1990 to 1992). --Johannes xz (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You said keep already - saying it again does not make it count more. noq (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and move to Max Kaur~~ (See below) Marbella112 (talk · contribs)'s sources above establish notability. Kaur receives significant coverage from independent reliable sources—"Max Kaur hakkab Olympicu kontori ees meelt avaldama", "Max Kaur on endiselt Tallinna linnapea nõunik", and "Max Kaur korraldab juba teist kasiinodevastast kampaaniat" from Postimees and "Max Kaur & sõbrad kogunevad Tammsaare parki kasiinode vastu meelt avaldama" and "Maksim Jermakovist sai integratsiooninõunik Kaur" from Eesti Ekspress. Goodvac (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Max Kaur is a serious politician defending the rights of Jews in Estonia. - Mannextdoor:|Mannextdoor: 00.32, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannextdoor (talk • contribs)
Comment We heard you the first time - again no need to repeat keep. Funny how your signature has the same mistake as most of the other SPAs that have contributed to this debate. noq (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not serious talk at all. We talk about an article, not about signature. Marbella112 (Marbella112) 19.42, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Comment added by 82.131.54.78 (talk · contribs)
Delete At the last AfD, I said to delete; since then a number of AfDs have changed our interpretation of WP:POLITICIAN to accept that anyone on the city council of a large city like Tallinn (420,000) is presumptively notable, but I think extending this to a single year in office is not rational. Judging by the GTranslate versions of the articles cited, they are entirely based on his PR, and therefore not reliable, no matter where they have been published. If kept, the article, small as it is, needs yet further editing to remove unencyclopedic and promotional material and photographs relating to his personal campaign against casinos. As for some of the arguments above, promoting the interests of a minority in a part of the world where they have long been persecuted is highly honorable, but not everyone who does it is notable DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to his PR? I'd like to compare it with the news articles. Goodvac (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - the meaning is that the article reads as if it was written by his publicity staff I am thinking above all of the one on the details of his depression--read [23] for yourself and tell me if it represents non-tabloid journalism. This sort of thing is why interviews with the individual are suspect as news stories and need to be examined critically before accepting them--they are normally an opportunity for the interviewee to speak about himself and say whatever they care to . Some are excuses for him to campaign against casinos. I was prepared to accept this version of the article until I actually read the references DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 7 November 2011

I've reread the articles, and I see your point. The first four articles I listed above are about some casino demonstration. The last one seems tabloid-like now that I've read it in detail. I've withdrawn my keep comment. Goodvac (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? Postimees ( Schibsted) is a tabloid:)???, http://www.tallinnapostimees.ee/415692/tallinna-volikogu-korrakaitsekomisjoni-esimeheks-sai-max-kaur/; http://wwx.tarbija24.ee/200407/esileht/siseuudised/256129.php; http://kanal2.ee/news/article/Max-Kaur-Tallinna-Vee-juhtkond-peaks-uputuse-kahjud-kinni-maksma; http://wwx.tarbija24.ee/280106/esileht/siseuudised/tallinn/189894.php; etc; etc Marbella112 (Marbella112) 01:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a single year in office is not rational." single year? he is elected 2009, but was important CP person from 2002. "the articles cited, they are entirely based on his PR", ridiculous claims - there are hundreds of the news articles from mainstream media. "is personal campaign against casinos." of course and is personal campaign " Occupy Wall Street" too:)Marbella112 (Marbella112) 15:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Comment added by 82.131.54.78 (talk · contribs)[reply]

"important in" "advisor to" and similar terms are puffery. Actually having an office can be significant. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,and Max Kaur is a Chairman of the Law Enforcement Commission of the City Council. Kaur is a former vice-mayor of the city of Maardu.Marbella112 (Marbella112) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Comment added by 82.131.54.78 (talk · contribs)[reply]

If that position is actually head of the police force, it has been recognized as being notable for a very few of the largest cities; but it does not necessarily mean more than chairman of an oversight committee, which I do not think usually has been. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"minority in a part of the world where they have long been persecuted". What part of that world would that be, I thought Max Kaur was active in Estonia? You might want to read History of the Jews in Estonia. --Sander Säde 05:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My wording wasdeliberate to show I was aware that there was less anti-semitisim in Estonia than eslewhere in the Baltics, and I would not have mentioned it except that one of the editos above gave it as the reason for supporting him. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Max Kaur member of the International Movement "World without Nazism." The international movement of "A world without Nazism" is represented in the U.S., Russia, France and other European Union countries! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apolinsky7 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment being a member of an organisation does not make you notable. BTW what brought you to this page to express an opnion - you and so many others with no previous interest in wikipedia? noq (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it is perfectly reasonable that his supporters should show up here,there is no reason to blame them for it. But this doesn't mean we need take what they say seriously. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. This is an exact copy of Max Kaur which was deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Kaur. Beagel (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an exact copy of Max Kaur, this is not a copy of Max Kaur. Look: Max Kaur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MVK2009 and Max Kaur(Jermakov) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Kaur_(Jermakov) Marbella112 (Marbella112) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ All these opinions who say that this article must be deleted, is were subjective. You say that Max Kaur is not notable person in estonian politic, this is very subjective statement. You always can say that articles about political person is PR, BUT that is although very subjective. You say that Estonia is a small country, and persons, who do politic in small state are not important, but that is chauvinism! You are full with anger! You say that men how defend rights of jews in Estonia and Europe is not notable person! So I can say that You are anti-Semite! If you delete this article I will complain to the Arbitration Court of Wikipedia! Article about Max Kaur must be in english wikipedia! Mannextdoor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannextdoor (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 November 2011

the argument that it is a small country (or city) has not been made; I agree it would have been invalid had it been made, for we treat all countries equally. He was, very unfortunately, referred to above as "a small-time politician"--that was a term of abuse, and should not have been said. The comment that some or all of us are anti-Semetic casts discredit on you, however, and should not have been made either. I can only excuse you on the basis that, not being familiar with WP, you might not have realized we do not engage in personal attack, and certainly not in those terms. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: "But this doesn't mean we need take what they say seriously"In Wikipedia, we discuss the content, not the editors, personal attacks will get you blocked, not elected. User:Marbella112 01:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, Sander, Noq and DDG - stop telling people about "supporters", for example, I read wikipedia all the time - english, estonian and sometimes russian, and I'm watching how WP is developing: articles are being discussed, edited, added etc. Especially I watch after english and estonian (because I'm Estonian). I don't understand arguments (like "doesn't make you notable", "PR only") of people, who are against this article. Why? We read and speak about a man, who is famous in Estonia, in Tallinn and has recommended himself on a international arena, presenting Estonia in serious international organizations. This is ridicilous what you are saying ("youth section of party" etc - it this serious? DDG). - I can say the same thing about "supporters" - why so many supporters of deletion came here? I think we have a lack of NEUTRALISM here, in discussion and I agree about idea with the Arb.Court of WP would add some justice. See the facts.
What's the problem in personality? -- Johannes xz ( talk ) 00:08, 8 November 2011

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reciprocity Complex[edit]

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

unsourced WP:Neologism. Given references do not refer to the term. Google searches do not provide anything to establish WP:Notability. Disputed prod without addressing the issue noq (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google Books search shows that the term is occasionally used in economics as opposed to the psychological context claimed by this article. Most commonly, though, Google turns up a sentence ending with "reciprocity", with, by coincidence, the following sentence beginning by "complex". No evidence that this specific topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I also couldn't find any sources that weren't dealing with the term's use in the context of economics. The comment of the page creator when removing the PROD notice ("new term needs to stay defined") also seems to indicate that it's a neologism --Miskwito (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:37, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital[edit]

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

Little or no content Touch Of Light (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content is available, but it doesn't satisfy WP:HOSPITAL#Notability. Nobody's written about it. The best I could find is this. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently its a one-sentence stub that contains no content beyond what's already in Tenet Healthcare, so redirect there at the very least. If someone is interested in expanding the article, it may well be a worthwhile subject -- that appears to have happened in past stub-hospital AfDs.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Now that I have improved article sufficiently.[24].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indio, California. (Changing to Keep, see below.) A paragraph has been added to this article by cut-and-pasting it from the Indio article, so all the information is already duplicated at the Indio article. Google Search for this hospital finds only mirrors of the Wikipedia Indio article. Google News finds nothing of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it to spur others, hopefully. I am pretty sure there are paywalled articles with coverage of the hospital based on my quick searching. It wouldn't be unusual to find it, certainly. But yes, addition of the paragraph by itself is not enough.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 10:44, 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) 00:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well referenced now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my opinion to keep based on the new "history" section, with references showing what a long-established hospital this is. Good work, Milowent. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable small hospital. Run-of the mill coverage does not satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the History section has improved the article and demonstrates reliable secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because useful to readers and inherently notable per WP:ORG and WP:NOTPAPER. Dualus (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a hospital... awesome. Wikipedia is not a directory. Can anyone point out a single source which gives anything other than trivial coverage of this place? Trusilver 20:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can. If you have paywall access to these articles and the archives of southern california newspapers, you can see there are articles completely about the hospital on a regular basis. I searched some AfDs on hospitals and saw a lot of other keep outcomes before I spent any time on this one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but perhaps my question instead should be what makes this hospital in any way notable... other than the fact it exists? Trusilver 19:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the GNG., which I think is the answer to Truesilver. the reason for the coverage is that major hospitals aresignificant community institutions. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainet, the West Virginia Radio Network[edit]

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

Fails GNG, page is full of unsourced OR and never has had any backing references. Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is a mess and due to its pre-internet existence I'm having issues finding sources about the network itself. What I have found are a number of new stories about people formerly involved with Mountainet that inform me that the network existed at the size and scope claimed in the article. I think the subject is probably notable but without reliable sources it's not provably notable. - Dravecky (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My research yield similar results to Dravecky's: various stories mentioning this network in passing but not much detail, for example one-and-a-half sentences here [25] and two sentences here[26] about one of the newscasters who left, and this one from 1985 [27] naming Mountainet as one of the state's two radio networks. (The other one, West Virginia MetroNews, still exists[28].) Mountainet should be notable, but verification of the details is difficult.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:55, 27 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) 00:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG even with the mentioned sources, specifically WP:GNG #5 "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". 1exec1 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as submitter. Always forget I can do that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:31, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albion (Warhammer)[edit]

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

I'm hereby nominating this article for deletion because IMHO the subject is all but irrelevant for the average reader, failing the mandatory notability requirements. The article describes a fictional archipelago of a fictional continent of a fictional world. The subject is largely unimportant for the setting itself, not being one of the major political factions. I believe that this is a rather simple case of WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:Fancruft (the second is not an official policy but please read it anyway). My most important reason is the following: The article lacks ANY sources whatsoever (since 2005!). The subject is also mentioned in a proper if somewhat short fashion in the article Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#The North, East, and South and that should be more than enough. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that the subject of the article meets the general notability guideline or that it can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. Also, Wikipedia is not video game guide to justify this type of content. Jfgslo (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:41, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ragged Crow[edit]

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

Independent film company of questionable notability. Possibly some notability for some of their projects or individuals, but a Google search on "Ragged Crow" shows a wealth of primary sources, social media and sales links, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources found in the first 10 pages of results. Article appears to have been created/edited by a pair of SPAs doing nothing but creating promotional articles for this company, its principals, and its projects. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ragged Crow is listed in the British Council Films Catalogue as the production company in the entry for Stealing Elvis, it is also listed on IMDb... Ragged Crow is notable for having made many films that have screened at Filmstock, Norwich Independent Film Festival, Portobello Film Festival, Rushes Soho Shorts Film Festival, London Independent Film Festival, Crystal Palace Film Festival, London Short Film Festival over a period since 2008... It emphasises quality low budget film-making and has a reputation in the underground film-making community... I do think it a shame if notabiltiy is mostly indemnified by a google search, which may vary from user to user, because of their preferences... I believe strongly that people who make films will want to know what this company does... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seditonary (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC) — Seditonary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As an addendum, surely IMDb, British Council & Plectrum TCP are bona fide secondary sources?...--Seditonary (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Seditionary[reply]

Please review WP:RS. IMDB is suitable as a jumping off point for guiding one in searches, but is not considered reliable enough as a citation. British Council Film is reliable enough to verify the company's existance (though I do not think that is in doubt), but simply being in their catalog does not confer a notability. Please read WP:CORP to better understand Wikipedia requirements for showing a company as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reliable sources to show notability. IMDb does not automatically give you notability, nor does being listed in the BCF listings. Fails WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedic platform that "anyone can edit use modify and distriblute"? (- Wikipedia: Five Pillars). A platform that does not "apply hard and fast rules" (- Wikipedia: Policies and Guidelines). Ragged Crow may not be Miramax or A Band Apart, but they they have had a four year history of making short films, that have screened at reputable festivals, and a feature, which might be considered noteworthy precisely because it was produced for £5 grand for 7 days of filming - cross ref with other films that are notable for their achievement despite low budgets such as The Blair Witch Project. I am a new contributor and understand that I might be met with with certain suspicion, but is this a case of "bite the newbie"? Many articles in Wikipedia must have had lowly beginnings. I am not saying that this article is full and complete, but I do reiterate that it is a decent enough starting off point for a subject that can be expanded upon... From an acorn does an oak grow... And I do believe that aspiring film-makers are interested in seeing small independent film production companies included on Wikipedia... If in the future Ragged Crow proves to do nothing more than they have already, then of course this should be reviewed. But Wikipedia (Five Pillars) encourages contributors to "be bold" (but not reckless) and as such I think this article should be given a chance, and when more citations and references become available, I will endeavour to add them... I might even find that other contributors by then are interested enough to do likewise... --Seditonary (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)— Seditonary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:SECONDARY says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources." That is what we need here, especially to satisfy the notability guideline outlined at WP:ORG and to be able to cover this topic in an encyclopedic manner. The same goes for other topics closely related to Ragged Crow. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if you are personally involved with any of these topics. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:41, 26 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) 00:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ragged Crow as a production company has no notability separate from that of its principals, Sam Edwards and Ed Edwards, and all of its films are already mentioned in both Sam and Ed's articles. It appears that none of Ragged Crow's films have gone on general release anywhere yet, just been shown at film festivals. (And screenings at the Portobello Film Festival won't count much toward notability; the festival screens every film that is submitted to it.) Contrary to what Seditonary wrote above, a film does not become notable just for being low budget -- there are lots of low-budget films that don't receive distribution and aren't covered in Wikipedia. What is particularly notable is when a low-budget film receives significant public attention, like what happened to The Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity. A low-budget film that plays at a couple of film festivals and doesn't go on general release can't be compared to that. I suspect, however, that some of the negative reaction to this article may have come from the formatting problems. If User:Seditonary, or another editor, will fix the formatting problems with Sam Edwards (poet, writer & independent film producer), Ed Edwards, and/or Stealing Elvis, then I'll refrain from recommending "delete" on those articles or nominating them for deletion myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ragged Crow hasn't received much coverage anywhere but the IMDb (which isn't a reliable source). Just take a look at the Google News archive search (also linked at the top of the page) to see what I mean. None of the six results have anything to do with the company. Seditonary, if more outside references become available, then the inclusion of the article could be justifiable, but for now, it fails the GNG. Chris (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the basis of MQS's analysis. When in doubt about articles on this subject I rely upon MQS, who both knows the field and is sympathetic to my own view of being as inclusive as makes sense, We both know there's a limit, and the limit must be defended to prevent us degenerating into a mere directory. DGG ( talk ) 14:56, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VELOCITY Broadcasting[edit]

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

Ad-like article, written by WP:SPA named like Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc., on a company only known from its own press releases. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom. See the article talk page, where we've been talking about what to name it, which would have been easy if there had been any secondary sources. There's one press release for their new name, and nothing else about them recently, and nothing but their own releases before, too, so they don't pass WP:GNG. The creating WP:SPA editor is EliasSavion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is also in a WP:COI situation, per the statement in the article that ""Velocity World Media was founded as Velocity Broadcasting in December 2005 by Philip Elias, co-founder and president of Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc." According to this Elias/Savion press release, they created the "VELOCITY Broadcasting Brochure: A high-impact corporate identity brochure with a unique oblong shape and a sophisticated design, this brochure features high-quality, glossy pages that provide an overview of VELOCITY Broadcasting and its capabilities." Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It would be good to keep the talk page (and its history), as there are other interesting issues raised, and otherwise we risk reinventing the wheel when these come up again. Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to do that? And why? I don't see what's interesting about that naming discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several options, for example I'm happy to userfy the talk page and its history. The discussion is presumably important to those who took the trouble to participate, of whom I am one (which is one reason it might be appropriate to move it to my own user talk space). If you're disinterested in the points made, that's fine too. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be advertising added by a COI organization. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing to demonstrate notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:44, 27 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) 00:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for a provider of in-house closed circuit entertainment for a couple of chain restaurants, apparently. It's hard to make that sound grandiose and important, but they get an F for Effort: From the WQED Multimedia studios in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and its corporate offices in New York City and Pittsburgh, Velocity World Media produces interactive private TV programming in HD-high definition formats and utilizes a fully encrypted signal to deliver the programming live via EchoStar Satellite to invitation-only audiences. Those audiences gather at the Velocity HD Digital Suites, which are located in private dining rooms in Morton’s The Steakhouse and Maggiano’s Little Italy restaurants in 200 markets throughout the world. Ridiculous. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Mountain Star[edit]

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

Non-notable military exercise. Just 471 hits on internet and just 1 hit on Google News. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - no reason to delete this exercise. The North is becoming more strategically important, not less. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe for the USA, but not for the rest of the world... Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Funny comment, since it was a Canadian exercise, not an American one. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The last time I have often the idea that American and Canadian subjects are quicker regarded notable then subjects from other continents/countries. "The North" is then a rather subjective claim. For me, "The North" is Northern-Ireland. What a South-African, Indian or Australian editor regards as "The North" I don't know, but I guess something different then Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Yukon or even Alaska. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The Canadian military went out and exercised. Then they went home. WP:DOGBITESMAN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major military exercises can still be notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very true; I've written an article on one myself. This exercise, however, wasn't major - it involved only two units operating from a single base. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 gnews hit says it all. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having one Google news hit is not a reason for deletion; please see WP:GOOGLEHITS. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS applies to google not google news. gnews is a good indicator of coverage in press. Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search.. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are more effective ways to determine if reliable sources can be found (i.e. to place "site:.... .com" after the search in question). Just because something is not in Google News does not mean that it is non-notable. 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

instead of saying WP:MUSTBESOURCES, please provide them. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.trentonian.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3324960
http://cc-130j.ca/2011/parajumpers-jump-from-the-royal-canadian-air-force%E2%80%99s-newest-capability-the-cc-130j-hercules/ 11coolguy12 (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources I provided above. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I don't see those two as independent reliable sources. The second one is owned by Lookheed Martin, the aircrafts manufacturer. And you can expect the local newspaper from Trenton, Ontario, home to the CFB Trenton, to write about their biggest employer. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say the newspaper is independent and reliable - but it doesn't demonstrate widespread coverage, that's for sure. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - My suspicion is based on the Dutch saying (in rough translation): whose bread one eats, whose words one speaks. Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; in addition to the lack of reliable sources to demonstrate actual notability, the article is improperly written, linking to offsite URLs instead of Wikipedia articles — which isn't in and of itself a deletion rationale, I know, but it often implies that the goal was to boost the other site's web traffic and/or Google ranking rather than to write a true encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly trivial. I'm not all that eager to say not indiscriminate as a reason at an AfD, but this is one case where it clearly applies. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrast shower[edit]

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

Finding few sources on it, and what I am finding isn't very relevant. There's no mentions of it (in quotes) on Google News, and Google Scholar has either trivial mentions that may or may not be relevant, or obviously irrelevant mentions (e.g. "in contrast, shower praise on..."). Not sure this meets the WP:GNG. As it stands, the article seems to be either based on some sort of marketing material or original research. Suspect that trying to get an article from the trivial coverage this has would amount to a violation of WP:SYNTH. 86.** IP (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable Keep I'm getting a lot of book hits in message therapy and sports training books. I have some doubt whetehr the article can be expanded beyond simply defining the term, however. Mangoe (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, that's what I was finding - lots of little mentions, nothing that goes into more than a sentence or two. I think it fails the "substantial coverage" part of the WP:GNG. 86.** IP (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It makes the grade. Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:33, 28 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) 00:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, enough total sum coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — Cirt (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hydrotherapy --Travis Thurston+ 23:58, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Misrra[edit]

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

Doesn't seems notable. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's a renowned VJ on UTV Bindass and has recently entered the Bigg Boss reality show as a housemate. --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Heyhello1234567 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Even the article name is not correct, please get some reliable sources. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article's name?? what?? google it my friend. it's correct okay. POOJA MISRRA is a well known personality--Heyhello1234567 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC) — Heyhello1234567 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, no notable sources. Borderline WP:NONSENSE --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC) Weak keep after a complete rewrite. It appears there are some reputable sources [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] that come closer to establishing notability, although a couple of those articles sound like publicity puff pieces, it does nudge the article a great deal closer to notability. Perhaps it could be userfied until it's been re-written in a more coherent manner, incorporating legitimate sources? In its current state, the article should be deleted, but I think there is potential there if someone wants to pour a lot of time into it. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She just entered the indian version of Big Brother i.e. Bigg Boss (season 5) which is the biggest reality show in india...she has gained immense popularity due to this. --Heyhello1234567 (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Heyhello1234567 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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) 00:08, 31 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Yootaek[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability at a level of WP:GNG. Perhaps there are some independent reliable sources that feature him in Korean, and I will be happy to change my !vote upon seeing such. I have been unable to locate them in English. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep- Name in Hangul (written Korean language) is 강유택 . Unreferenced article in ko.wiki here has existed days shy of a year. The notice at top is an arbitration committee election notice, not an AfD. Earliest found mention by independent RS, national The Chosun Ilbo (Korea Daily News) here, mangled by translation confirms participation in event, (then) ranked 14th by the national governing body, and top prize for event (won by someone else) c. $20,000, showing professional level. Already 20 by Korean age, turns 20 by Western notation in November, don't see difference as errors or other person; reported in other venues as youngest current 4th dan player, has time to become youngest ever ranked 5th or above by modern rating. I know the weakness of the 'sources must exist' position, but with the language hurdle... Dru of Id (talk) 22:01, 17 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) 00:02, 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) 00:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage. Yaron K. (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering Go's popularity in Korea, coverage is bound to be there. This piece in The Hankyoreh, a popular Korea daily, profiles him. I'm sure there is more coverage. The Interior (Talk) 18:33, 3 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Abramoff[edit]

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

Searches for any reliable sources for this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 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) 00:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has not proven his prominence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.112.79 (talk) 19:23, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find anything on this gentleman. There's one source here that indicates some tiny measure of notability. He's listed in a patent for paper dispensing. That's it. I feel as if this was trans-wiki'd over from the French Wikipedia's article on Abramoff, but that has neither of the above sources - only this. Clearly, this individual existed, but they're not anywhere near fulfilling GNG. m.o.p 06:28, 8 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. postdlf (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Chandra Agrawal[edit]

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

Searches for any reliable sources for this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of a national legislature. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 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]

Keep per WP:POL as above. Although sources are meager, his political actions on the national level are sufficient to grant notability. Trusilver 05:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN he is inherently notable regardless of how little sources there are to be found. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 31 October 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) Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. gets very limited coverage in gnews. [34]. gbooks has more hits but it's mainly listings in travel books rather than indepth coverage about the museum itself. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 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) 00:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is a regional museum in a rapidly developing country, documenting the threatened hill tribes such as the Akha, Hmong, Karen, and Lisu of Northern Thailand. It is reviewed and listed exactly as it should be for a reputable museum worthy of note WP:GNG and WP:ORG - most obviously, on travel pages, guide books and travel websites, "reliable sources unrelated to the subject" as WP:ORGIN says. Here are some (it's hard to think of a more solid and reliable travel source than the Rough Guides): (updated Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Bangkok Post: Travel

Thailand's World "A visit to the Tribal Museum is strongly recommended as an introduction to the cultures and practices of the current hill tribes of northern Thailand. This museum serves as an extensive resource centre for the tribal cultures, and the visitor will certainly leave with a better understanding of each hill tribe. It is unique and compact, and together with the nearby National Museum of Chiang Mai, can be viewed in half a day."

The New York Times - Travel "Formerly part of Chiang Mai University's Tribal Research Institute, this small exhibit showcases the cultures and daily lives of the hill-tribe people of Thailand's north. It is recommended as a good introductory course for those who plan to visit many northern villages."

Rough Guides.com "The Tribal Museum enjoys a superb location behind the artfully landscaped Ratchamangkla Park. Overlooking a tree-lined lake, the very pretty and peaceful setting makes a visit worthwhile, as does the opportunity to learn something about the various hill tribes before heading off on a trek." (more in the article itself)

Addicted to Travel.com

Frommer's Thailand with Your Family by Jack Barker. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added some references, quotations and images to the article itself. Seems a worthy Keep to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequate coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 05:04, 2 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 merge to Iwan Fals. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Galang Rambu Anarki[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) 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete Non-notable on his own: content could be merged into Iwan Fals. Davidelit (Talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Possibly notable on his own (if the album was nationally released and distributed on a major publisher), but verifying information like that online is impossible; it would have to be online. The song is famous enough, so a redirect is fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:21, 27 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) 00:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. - Merge and redirect to Iwan Fals. Galang Rambu Anarki is Iwan Fals son, and also a title of his song. The song is popular in Indonesia.*Annas* (talk) 07:14, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SoDak Con[edit]

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

I used PROD to propose for deletion based on notability, POV, and probable COI. Creator responded removing PROD, and stating they didnt have COI "they were an online advocate and web admin" of the org. Subsequent to that someone else CSDd (G11). Assuming creator deletes the CSD, I am just putting it through AFD to get consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable convention. Google news search on "SoDak Con" shows only one result more than a year ago. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment creator is making good faith efforts to clean up the page. Currently it still fails notability, but i think we should give the creator a few days to see if he can dig up coverage in local newspapers etc. I was unable to find any in google search, but he may be more motivated. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

changed vote - keep based on creators cleanup, and finding of new sources, I will change my vote to keep. I believe the creator does have a COI issue, but as long as they keep the article NPOV I think it is ok. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in the article confirm its notability. Dream Focus 23:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wikipedia being used to promote an unremarkable minor convention. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources seem to either be non-independent or hyper local. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability makes no reference or requirements to the scope of notability. Local reliable coverage is still coverage. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rapid City Journal is a newspaper of daily circulation, with editorial control, and confirms notability of the conference.Wikfr (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I have made minor adjustments to the article.Wikfr (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I have seen here has changed my delete position - its mostly primary citations with a couple of promotional reports of a minimally notable sales outlet. I am unhappy with the nominator - if you don't want to delete an article don't nominate it - the nominator is commenting keep against usual practice. There are three clear delete vote comments and there are the creator with a stated involvement and the nominator and User:Dream Focus in support. Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote because the author was able to show notability to my satisfaction. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by Phoxtank. He/she has not voted. My involvement was only to demonstrate to a new editor how the article could be improved. I think the nominator changed his/her vote, after the creator improved the article. Wikfr (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone not believe http://www.sequentialtart.com/article.php?id=1907 is significant coverage in a reliable source? 223 Wikipedia articles have a link to this website, and it looks reliable to me. Dream Focus 14:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I am the article creator.) -- Not certain if I'm allowed to put down an actual keep vote or not. As contribution to this debate I wanted to just clear up a few things. The original article that Gaijin42 reported in on isn't really the same as how the article is listed now. The entire page has been re-vamped and adjusted to fall in accordance as best as I can translate from wiki's requirements and guidelines. I have also reviewed the information on COI and NPOV and have made the adjustments to the discussion page as well as my own personal talk page to disclose my involvement to further express that it is not my intention to post a biased article to wiki. I have found reliable news sources to help with notability as well, including the local daily news paper Rapid City Journal and Kota Territory News (abc). My intention's weren't to abuse wiki in any manner and I am hoping that the many adjustments that have been made have helped the article. If more adjustments are needed it is open to be edited and I have no qualms about negative or positive edits being added or removed with valid or citable reasons or resources. I appreciate everyone's concerns and feedback about the article and am open for further advice to make the article more compliant. -- I am new to wiki-ing, and where as it doesn't excuse my mistakes for not fully reading the available information for assisting with "new articles", I am still learning and do intend on keeping everything about edit's and articles NPOV in the future to help avoid issues like this.Phoxtank (talk) 19:10, 3 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fahd Ballan[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) 19:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment English and French sources are there, but don't say quite enough to establish notability. However, they do say enough for me to think it highly likely that Arabic sources would establish notability - but I can't read Arabic. PWilkinson (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-known figure of Arab music. عمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:58, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some references to sources that confirm that the subject was a major player in player in the Syrian and Egyptian poplular music scenes in pre-Internet decades. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing provided by User:Phil Bridger. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:18, 5 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Minsky[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 19:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 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) 00:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article as nominated was extremely spammy; I edited away most of it, but there's still no evidence of passing WP:PROF. I did find several newspaper reviews for his book with Emily Calvo, 25 Words or Less: How to Write Like a Pro to Find that Special Someone Through Personal Ads, so it's possible to make the case that the book itself is notable, but even if so I think he fails WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 2 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. Courcelles 23:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yemane Baria[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) 19:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A reliable sources saying that the subject is "widely considered to be the country's greatest-ever singer" looks very much like notability to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 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) 00:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple more references (from previewable Google Books) to the article. These describe the subject as "one of the most renowned Eritrean artists" and "a popular singer and songwriter ... widely identified with a national awakening due to the patriotic themes he incorporated into his music". These plus that already identified by Phil Bridger confrm notability. AllyD (talk) 21:03, 31 October 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. Courcelles 23:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bertín Osborne[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable under WP:GNG and WP:N. Quis separabit? 21:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another singer with no recordings, etc. Mangoe (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A look at es:Bertín Osborne suggests plenty of notability, which can be confirmed with a cursory search [35] [36] [37] [38] — frankie (talk) 14:57, 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) 00:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - obviously keep. Bertín Osborne has released over 20 albums, many have gone platinum, plus a number of Greatest Hits. He's also a major TV star in the Spanish-speaking world ([39]) --Tris2000 (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – among other reasons, meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, as demonstrated by Frankie. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 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 no consensus and after two weeks none is forming. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Strasser[edit]

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

Most of the links supplied don't mention the man, and the ones that do - an IMDb entry, Strasser's website and a blurb - do not rise to the level of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Has potential, but the OP is correct in his/her comments on notability. – Richard BB 21:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a new user asked for some help with this (in IRC); I advised them to try and improve refs, and to comment here in the discussion. From a quick look, I see one apparent RS here - possibly, this could be 'rescued', but of course it would need more referencing. Chzz ► 01:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for input on WikiProject_Germany Chzz ► 01:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The German filmportal entry has a bit more information, apparently factual and under editorial oversight. Calling it a blurb is a bit tough, it merely states some biographical and award information. We are not talking Spielberg here, but he seems notable enough in his specific area of work. From WP:BIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." which is the case here (see awards). Agree with needed reference improvements. GermanJoe (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 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) 00:02, 31 October 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.