< 4 October	6 October >

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) 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 1997 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

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

The article is a complete content fork of the article 1997 Atlantic hurricane season. The latter is the main article and is the same format as most other seasons. The timeline presents a different format, which highlights every category change. However, due to the low activity of the year, the main season article already covers all of the information found in the timeline. Furthermore, there were no simultaneous storms (which some might argue would lend useful to the timeline format). Therefore, I propose the timeline be deleted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 17:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There a are of lot of good timelines around Wikipedia, but this is not one of them, as it is, as Hurricanehink stated, a content fork and serves very little purpose besides depicting the category changes. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

odelete plz. Auree ★ 23:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Hink. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1997 Atlantic hurricane season. No need for a seperate article(changed to keep, see below), it is however, a likely search term. Perhaps some of the information, specific times etc, could be incorporated into the existing article in which case it would not be appropriate to delete the contribution history. Polyamorph (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all of the info in the timeline is already in the main article, with the minor exception of the exact timing and location of Danny's landfall and each category change for Erika. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main article covers it, and I doubt this will be a common search term. First Light (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have several articles with similar titles differing only in the year. Someone might use the search function for different years. So I see no harm in redirecting.Polyamorph (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep Many of the atlantic hurricane season articles have these accompanying timeline articles, see this search result. It seems like a standard format to link to these articles in the "Storms" section, as a more succint way of summarising the events as a function of time. I'm changing my !vote to keep because it is not appropriate to delete one article for one year from what looks to be a consistent and systematic method of organising information for all years. Deletion would require a much wider discussion including all of the "Timeline of the yyyy Atlantic hurricane season" articles and not just this one. Polyamorph (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we realize that it is standard format for a season to have a timeline. However, as for the case here, it is being nominated because the Timeline is basically a content fork, basically just repeating what is in the season article. What's the purpose of something that just repeats what is in another's article? Additionally, the season had very little in the way of Impact to any landmasses, which is typically a big part of a timeline. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 11:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise until I checked, it wasn't clear in the nomination, not all users reading and commenting on AfD will have a background in editing hurricane articles. I still say keep as it seems a nice consistent manner to summarise the events as a function of time and I feel a wider discussion is first required as to the purpose of all timeline articles as a whole (unless you can point to that discussion/policy/guideline) since most contain at the very least partial content forking. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pah hink. HurricaneFan 25 12:14, 10 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Carbonero[edit]

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

Not exactly notable in her own right--only current information about her is related to her relationship with Iker Casillas (World Cup incident two and a half years ago that can just as easily be put in his article) and how she was voted sexiest journalist in Spain in 2009 Morhange (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she appears to be a pretty big Spanish celebrity and sixteen different language Wikipedias have an article on her. If any one knows German it looks like there is a lot of content at de:Sara Carbonero that could be translated over. JORGENEV 06:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added one claim to the article. The German WP article simply has more words for essentially the same content. The only other topic they discuss is the connection of the Carbonero World Cup incident to the role of women in Spain, which seems a bit far-fetched to me. After all, she's not just a woman sports reporter but the girlfriend of the goalkeeper. All in all I do not see her historic significance (yet), but the extensive coverage in multiple important mass media makes it hard to ignore WP:GNG. --Pgallert (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "la reportera más famosa del momento". Loads of coverage can be found that doesn't even mention her boyfriend, such as [1], [2] and [3], and some of the coverage that is about the relationship, such as this, focuses on the implication of the relationship for Carbonero's work as a journalist, so is very definitely about her rather than Casillas. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a notable reporter in Spain.--Braniff747SP (talk) 20:53, 8 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 non-admin close and redirect. An AfD wasn't really necessary for this article. As that this concerns a redundant article. There was no relevant material to merge into crankshaft position sensor, I simply redirected to the more relevant entry. Trusilver 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crank sensor[edit]

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

This article is redundant, with almost all of its content included word for word in the more complete crankshaft position sensor article. Destynova (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect - per nom. The article could use some sources, though. Trusilver 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is Articles for deletion. Don't bring articles here when deletion forms no part of what you want. When you see duplicate articles, follow the procedure at Project:duplicate articles, which does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there's only one subject and they should be merged, but as a matter of simple fact this article was created in 2006 and the proposed target in 2009, so that's the redundant duplicate and not this one. It is normal, I think, to redirect to the older article where there's no compelling reason to do otherwise? No admin action required, anyway, as the merge will leave a redirect with history. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, It's obvious what needs to be done with this article, so I'm just going to do a close of this AfD. I've already gone through the article and there really isn't anything to merge into the new one that wouldn't be redundant, so I'm simply going to redirect. Trusilver 16:44, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Bhardwaj[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per last AfD where no one !voted. fails WP:CREATIVE as a TV presenter/reporter and WP:BIO. besides the source in the article, the rest of the coverage merely confirms he's a reporter. note he has a namesake who is a hair stylist. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears notable based on Category:STV newsreaders and journalists and the number of people in it who appear as notable as he does, including Alan Saunby, Anne Scott, Joan Ingram, and Nichola Kane. He appears to have a large Twitter following, has done reporting archive on the station's website, was mentioned in a local news report, and mentioned in another Scottish Newspaper. Seems notable based on like articles and independent news coverage. --LauraHale (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Err ... he "appears notable" because he's listed in a category with other presenters who, themselves, might be notable? Nonsense. Not only is notability not inherited, never mind venereal, the GNG requires that the subject be cited in "significant detail" in multiple reliable, independent sources. Twitter feeds don't constitute independent sources. A self-submitted bullet point bio on a newspaper's blogsite does not constitute "significant detail" or independent. Pulling up a search for him on Google UK shows the top hits being the usual ones for insignificant subjects: this Wikipedia article, his Facebook page, his Twitter page, his Bebo page, his Linkedin page, his Google Plus page and other forums and social media. A Google News UK search, by contrast, turns up empty. Ravenswing 16:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no coverage of him as a TV presenter. The only sources I can find talk about him running in a charity race and playing cricket. His Twitter following isn't relevant, and notability isn't inherited. Lagrange613 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Colon el Tom 09:30, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sima Khan[edit]

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

A Pakistani socialite. Only source in the article is a photo gallery. I'm unable to find any reliable sources about her. Article has been around for five years. Bgwhite (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Article unimproved since creation, and nothing to suggest that improvement from this bare stub is a possibility. Ravenswing 16:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is in no way notable.Vincelord (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Braniff747SP (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not asserted, and I agree with Ravenswing that this stub seems unimprovable. Colon el Tom 09:28, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Smith[edit]

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

Not sure why or how the subject complies with WP:CREATIVE. I Googled "Books of Herman Smith" and barely any high-quality articles came up Isaw, but again, who I am to judge? Article seems to have been created as a reaction to the subject's death. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure how a web search for such a specific phrase tells us anything about notability of a subject who was mostly active in the pre-Internet era, and many articles about notable subjects are created in reaction to their deaths, that being a time when reliable sources are likely to be published. In this case a much more telling indication is that a Worldcat search doesn't seem to find either the author or his "best known" work. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There aren't any references here, and I couldn't find any to add (admittedly, I only looked online for 5 minutes). Notability not asserted. Colon el Tom 09:39, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius Chişu[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:39, 11 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyo Rioku Jutsu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; can't find any reliable, third-party coverage Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article about an organization with no signs of notability. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like a no-brainer. The article has no sources and makes no claims of notability. There's certainly nothing there to show it passes WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Colon el Tom 09:40, 10 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 userfy and delete. Page has been moved to User:Rbfisher/CVonline, preserving history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CVonline[edit]

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

(contested prod) promotional article for non-notable web page. Ref is to promotional page by web site's owner and article creator. No other indication of notability and a search turns up nothing. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. ~~Non Notable~~ Sources do not establish notability. The wikilinked articles are all by the same user, and they should go as well.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the historical CVonline resource was heavily used by the computer vision community, with almost 900,000 front page accesses in the past 10 years. It linked about 2000 core topics in computer vision into a nice hierarchical structure.

Over the past few years, about 1000 of the 2000 topics have appeared in wikipedia, but there is no structure and so users, especially beginners, will not recognize the connections and generalizations between topics, which is what the hierarchy provided.
The criticism that it is promoting a non-notable web site is a little beside the point: the purpose of this wikipedia page is to provide an anchor to the hierarchy. The hope is that the current external CVonline web site actually will fade away as the community develops the wikipedia content.
One can provide this hierarchy and anchor outside of wikipedia, but then the community cannot easily collaboratively develop the hierarchy.
There is no commercial or personal benefit to this page - it is provided as a public service.
Having this page benefits everyone and provides no individual with special benefits, so I request that it should be left in wikipedia.
I'd like to make a similar argument for the other computer vision list pages that we have created that have been flagged for deletion - they are part of the knowledge structuring that the computer vision community finds so helpful. They have only been up for a few weeks so have not yet had time to evolve inside wikipedia.
If you like, I can request testimonials from the top computer vision scientists worldwide about the benefits and impact that CVonline has had, and what I hope it will continue to have by moving the structure into wikipedia. Eg: in the UK: Andew Blake, Managing Director, Microsoft Research Cambridge, David Hogg, Vice Principal Leeds University,
Bob Fisher, Professor, University of Edinburgh (Rbfisher) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The issue is notability, which needs the subject to be discussed in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Testimonials of users or supporters of the site cannot be used. But if as you write the site has worldwide benefits and impact it should be easy to find references.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cvonline was developed solely as a web resource, although I have published a few printed articles describing it. As a testament to its use, entering "rbf/cvonline" into google

produces about 19,000 hits. Some of the hits don't seem to contain the string, but most do, ie. they are referencing either the resource as a whole or some of its content. As another measure of impact, there have been 7800 front-page accesses to CVonline since the export of the structure into wikipedia was announced about a month ago.

I agree that the CVonline wikipedia page could be deleted as there is currently nothing there (other than history) that is not replicated in the external page. My hope is that

the external page can eventually be forgotten about and people would use the wikipedia page. I can see the issue of whether it is appropriate for wikipedia.

On the other hand, the "list of X" pages that are linked from the cvonline page provide a resource not available elsewhere, and are the pages that users will want to edit when they create new wiki pages. The cvonline page provides an anchor to link all of the 'list' pages. We could easily move the links to the 'computer vision' wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbfisher (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rbfisher suggests a very sensible compromise.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that compromise is. Articles on the site could be used if they were used as references, and may already being used as such. I would object to the index pages being linked: I had to remove a large number of such links after Papadim.G spammed them to dozens of articles to which they were little related, and now have prodded after he copied them wholesale here. But anyway, this AfD is about the page CVonline.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the suggestion to delete the CVonline page and move the links to Computer vision although I've just noticed that that article is assessed "B class" despite cleanup and inline tags, which I don't think can be correct.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Papadim.G is one of my assistants and the cross linking that was deleted was our attempt at enhancing the utility of wikipedia. For example, CVonline lists 28 different curve representations, included in the List of image analysis object, world and scene representations page. The closest corresponding wikipedia article curve barely touches on a few of the representations. About half of the actual representations do not have a wikipedia article, and most of the remainder do not link to any of the alternative representationRbfisher 07:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's nice that the people involved with this website wish to help Wikipedia; we can always use more volunteers to develop and improve articles. But that's not the issue at stake here: it is whether the subject meets the pertinent notability guidelines - either WP:WEB or the GNG - to sustain an article. Has CVOnline "... been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself?" Has it "... won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization?" There's no evidence that it has, and thus an article on the subject cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 16:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user space. Rbfisher asserts some utility to CVOnline users to having a Wikipedia page, and I don't dispute that. But WP:N doesn't contain a clause that says "except if it's useful for somebody", so it doesn't belong in article space. ~~How about a move to User:Rbfisher/CVOnline? Or it can be another section in User:Rbfisher.~~ Lagrange613 (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Userfying is only appropriate if the intent is to build the article up until such time as it meets the requirements for articlespace. Since Wikipedia is not a web host, it's inappropriate to keep this content around on nothing more than the premise that CVOnline users need there to be a Wikipedia page containing it, whether in articlespace or in userspace, their convenience notwithstanding. Ravenswing 18:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point. I guess my argument more amounts to move to another website, i.e., delete. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This clearly doesn't meet our notability requirements, or any realistic definition of what belongs in an encyclopedia. I'm shocked that a professor of informatics at a major university would think otherwise. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept the opinions that the CVonline page should be deleted. But there are still 3 open issues: 1) Are the 'List of X' pages linked from the CVonline page viable as wiki pages? There are many other 'list' pages, eg. List_of_record_labels:_0-9. 2) Is there a suitable mechanism for collating all of the 'List of X' links in one place, eg. on the Computer Vision page? 3) If on that page, where? There is already a criticism about the 'See Also' section, although this strikes me as an ideal location. Should this discussion move to another page? If so, where? Rbfisher 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not viable, i.e. good WP articles, as they they bear little relation to WP. for the same reason they should not be added to any other page. See also sections are for links relevant to the article which don't appear in the article, and generally contain only a few carefully chosen links, if any (as in many fairly comprehensive article all relevant links appear in the article). These are not contentious issues: Wikipedia is not a place to host content, including lists and indices, copied from other sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the benefits of a common style, but lists are common knowledge structuring devices.

Here are 3 examples: 1) academic book indices are generally not simply alphabetic lists of words/concepts, but have a hierarchical structuring into subconcepts. 2) Modern versions of the printed Encyclopedia Brittanica included a resource called the Propaedia, with extensive sets of lists. 3) Some of the most useful web pages in my research area are essentially structured collections of links, such as the Kalman Filter homepage, Computer Vision homepage, Face Recognition homepage. It is not a historical anomaly - it is an attempt to help structure snippets of knowledge into usable larger structures. Search engines are great for dealing with flat knowledge resource, but it seems sensible to also exploit human expertise, and wikipedia is less than it could be without them. Rbfisher 07:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: All that is well and good, but Wikipedia has notability criteria governing what articles can or cannot be retained, and the question of meeting those criteria is the only issue at stake; whether or not an article is "useful" or not is a philosophic question outside our scope. The ones specifically pertaining to this one are WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Which elements of those criteria do you claim this article meets, and based upon what evidence? Ravenswing 11:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:ITSUSEFUL. Many things are useful to someone or many people but that is not alone a reason to add them to Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from WP:ITSUSEFUL: 'For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."'. That sums up the proposed lists, where X is Computer Vision. Rbfisher 17:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness on its own is not a reason. But no, they are not useful navigation tools. Looking at the first one it lists "Land management", "Bengali", and "Cartoons/Sketches", completely unrelated topics. Besides it has links for none of those three, so in the very unlikely event that a reader stumbled upon the page when they were really looking for Bengali it would be of no help to them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reset the deletions on all the 'list' pages until Nov 1? To give us time to set up alternative linking outside of wikipedia. Rbfisher 23:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy them yourself and host them yourself. Wikipedia is not your web host. You can always get and install MediaWiki yourself if you want to host them on a site like this, and there are other alternatives at that link.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the pages in anticipation of their deletion. The issue is the that it will take a little while to set up an alternative service. The pages have been used by 5-10K people since they were installed in wikipedia a month ago. There is nothing offensive in the pages, they are a non-commercial public service, they are using only a 100kb and they will go soon. Deleting them tomorrow will disadvantage scholars and students worldwide. WP has nothing to lose by the short extension to the deletion date.Rbfisher 08:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as has already been pointed out "it's useful" is not a valid argument against deletion. Many things, arguably most things on the internet, are useful to someone. That does not mean they should be included in Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. This sort of thing (a useful collection of pointers to Wikipedia articles on some focused topic, that may not meet the internal criteria for notability of lists within WIkipedia itself) is instead much better handled as a Wikipedia book. The "Book:" namespace has less rigid standards about what can appear there and the book formatting functionality works well with this sort of list. I suggest migrating/transwikiing over there. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 11 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Lysakov[edit]

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

Article is about a Russian painter without coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The biography from the artist's web site lists exhibitions at the Tretyakov Gallery, and Pushkin Museum, but he does not appear to be part of the permanent collection, nor can these exhibitions be confirmed in reliable sources. Searching in English and Russian turns up no coverage in reliable sources. The Russians search was done using machine translation so perhaps somebody proficient in Russian checking would be welcome. I did find this English language press release. Whpq (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There appears to be several reliable sources. However, there doesn't appear to be a significant amount of coverage. Article appears to fail the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:15, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kogan[edit]

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

Article is about a journalist without significant coverage in reliable sources. This passing mention was the most I could find. Whpq (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't really able to find anything else myself. Many of the Alexander Kogans I came across were totally different people, which somewhat hindered my search, but regardless I don't see significant coverage anywhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Various searches turn up nothing beyond the odd passing mention. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This. Search results turned up with nothing but websites with either information retrieved from this Wikipedia page, or some random person not relating to the one described in this page, at all. - DARKSHADOWMIST

Delete Article doesn't have any reliable sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:12, 9 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. There is next to nothing refuting the claim that this is a notable topic in light of the sources presented, which take it beyond a dictionary term. Also, no-one has established that the stub is problematic, as opposed to merely inadequate. Those arguing for a redirect or a merge have not established that "Americanism" is the same as the proposed target (eg "American nationalism"). The consensus is to keep. Mkativerata (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americanism (ideology)[edit]

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

This is barely an article and it lacks any references or sources. If there's anything of substance in the two or three sentences it contains they can be added to American Nationalism. HazelGHC (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feh ... I don't know. The Washington Times has used the term, but I don't believe that's a reliable source. John Pilger in the New Statesman also wrote about it. All of the other news articles I've found online about it refer to anti-Americanism. Your results may differ. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Anything of value can easily be incorporated into another article rather than leaving it as a stub which, quite frankly, lacks in substance. I've never heard or read this word used in this manner. Americanism generally refers to a word or phrase originating in the U.S. Or this article could be incorporated into the Americentrism article. I'm just saying, there seem to be several articles saying the same thing under different names. HazelGHC (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've noticed that this basic concept has been missing from WP for a while but haven't taken it on yet due to the difficulty of writing the piece without engaging in so-called "original research," quote unquote. This is a correct title for the piece. This is an encyclopedic topic. It's a bad early effort here. A simple Google search for the term will demonstrate the pervasiveness of the concept. When I eventually go after it, I'll probably start with the concept of "100% Americanism" and contrast Americanism with Bolshevism, which was a common published juxtaposition of ideological concepts when the term launched in the early 20th Century. Like I say, this is a tough piece and it has been obviously missing from WP for quite some time; keep and improve through the normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you are right; there are lots of possible sources under "100 % Americanism", but I'm not sure they're reliable. Anyone who wants to take a crack at rescuing or incubating this, go right ahead. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for myself, I'm not gonna do work on this one under the gun, this is probably a three day writing project to get it more or less right. This is not the Article Improvement Workshop in any event. The term apparently was popularized by Teddy Roosevelt in a book by the same name, published in 1915 — if someone wants to start digging, that's the era to start looking. The term went out of vogue at the end of the 1950s; Billy Graham wrote a work on the topic in 1956. For a recent book, see David Galernter, Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion (Doubleday) or Michael Kazin and Joseph Anthony McCartin, Americanism : new perspectives on the history of an ideal (University of North Carolina Press, 2008). If I'm starting to work, I've got those in front of me from the get-go. Here's a few more: David Jayne Hill, Americanism: What It Is (1916), John Spargo, Americanism and Social Democracy (1918), Warren G. Harding, Americanism (1920), Ole Hanson, Americanism and Bolshevism (1920), Woodrow Wilson et al. Americanism (n.d., circa 1919). And so on. There is a huge radical literature and a huge patriotic literature dealing with the ideological concept. A WorldCat search of "Americanism" in book titles returns 3,402 books — obviously some duplicates, but there are probably about 1500 books and pamphlets, conservatively, using the word in the title. And yes, many or most of them are dealing with more or less the same ideological concept. Carrite (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With what, I'm not sure exactly. This just seems to be a rephrase of "American Patriotism". --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can actually be improved and sourced, that would be great. The point I'm trying to make though is that it seems to be a three sentence rehash of information available in several other articles. It's possible for an idea to exist under different names. Is this concept unique enough from American nationalism and Americentrism to merit its own entry? Could it be merged with American exceptionalism? This splintering of different aspects of the same topic makes it difficult for searchers to find all the information on these closely related topics when one or two pages and several redirects could solve the problem. (I say this as a librarian. This is partially a problem of needing controlled vocabulary.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HazelGHC (talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate encyclopedic subject in its own right. It should probably, in final form, be a subpage of American nationalism. However, it is not a synonym for this, nor should it be a simple redirect to this. It is a concrete ideology with a vast published literature that should be seven miles over General Notability Guidelines, which call for multiple, independent, reliable, published sources. Somehow the emphasis here is on how crappy and unnecessary and duplicative this piece is. That's neither here nor there. The title is right, the subject is encyclopedic — as even a cursory search of published literature will indicate — and this should be closed a keep for now. I gay-ron-tee that this piece will not stay this way for very long, it has been one that I've been thinking about for quite some time but there are some big research needs that need to be fulfilled before it can be done right, as opposed to as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be turned into a legitimate article, that's fine. As it stands it's next to worthless. Maybe the Americentrism article, which is little more than a dictionary entry, can be merged into this one instead because I stand by the idea that there are too many articles on different facets of the same subject. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide useful and easily locatable information to interested searchers. Going beyond that it should also be easy to browse through relevant, related information. That's why consolidation of information (where applicable) and controlled vocabulary are so important. HazelGHC (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite, I'm going with your argument; I would favor a merge of Americentrism into this one, and I'll add the usual suspect tags to see if someone wants to fix it. Otherwise, incubation may be in order. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The word has been used, but with many disparate meanings. I don't believe it is possible to write an article on the wordl, because essentially that's all it is (a word with many definitions, WP:DICDEF), and not an actual ideology. Neutrality^talk 18:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the basis for an article. As usual, Carrite has the right approach: use an inadequate stub as a basis for building. The more complicated the meaning, the greater the potential for an article explaining the ramifications and the usages, To throw articles out as inadequate would have doomed Wikipedia from the beginning. There is no policy basis for deletion. What we remove are only those inadequate articles which are unexpandable because there is shown to be an absence of information for expanding them--and this is far from it. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The fact that the term has been used to refer to different things does not justify an article. TFD (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic appears to have been addressed in several sources. I've added these two to the article:

Kazin, Michael; McCartin, Joseph A. (2006.) "Americanism: new perspectives on the history of an ideal." The University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-3010-9
Yerkes, Andrew C. (2005.) "Twentieth-century Americanism: identity and ideology in Depression-era leftist fiction." Routledge. ISBN 0415975387, ISBN 9780415975384

Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American nationalism. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This might be a small article,but a major edit to this article can make it better.Remember,it is always better to improve a article rather than deleting it for not being good enough.Dipankan001 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the concept can be established to be distinct from American nationalism using reliable sources. If it cannot, redirect there. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep. Just provide some good references, and worry about expansion later. A stub is fine. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to American nationalism. It is really a manifestation of nationalism or actually a portmanteau of American nationalism! Moreover this ideology is far from unique to America. You can substitute "America" with many other countries, so what's so special about this? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:18, 12 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AEK Athens F.C. Reserves[edit]

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

Reserve teams in Greece don't play in the main league system, but rather in a special reserves league, which is not fully-professional. No sufficient media coverage to justify WP:GNG. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 16:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 16:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reserve teams can be notable, but there is no evidence why this one is. Giant Snowman 17:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last of Kin[edit]

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

It was a game that was never completed and didn't have a license so wasn't going to be mainstream. I'm not find RS references. RJFJR (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't exist and probably never will. Hardly notable. HazelGHC (talk) 17:11, 5 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) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 9 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 closed as moot; article speedily deleted by User:Fastily. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rentcycle[edit]

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

Quite obviously the account was made purely to advertise an online website. Gorlack36 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. In case anyone's wondering why the page was created after this AfD, the article was speedy deleted as U1 (page was blanked) soon after being nominated. It's been tagged for A7 now — frankie (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The A7 has been contested. Because the article was recreated (quickly), I've added the AFD notice to the recreated article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - In response to the above comment, I recreated the page so quickly because I was getting used to the editing tools. My apologies for raising alarms unnecessarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SZinsmeister (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "Comment" - my friend sent this wikipedia article to me and it seems to accurate. Gorlack, did you check your sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinhalter (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Current text is unambiguous advertising from start to finish: a provider of real-time online rental reservations for consumers and cloud-based business management solutions for rental stores....Rentcycle is built on the principles of Collaborative Consumption and the motto “Usership is the new ownership.” The company promotes sustainable commerce and reuse with each product that is rented through the site.... Rentcycle provides vendors with a comprehensive cloud-based business management and point-of-sale system called RentCloud. Only claims to notability are petty trade awards, Startup of the Day listings, and inclusions in Top 100 style lists. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as blatant spam. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a neologism that has never really caught on.

It only has about 8300 ghits total - and, while that's not an argument as such, it's very, very low when the only reason to have an article on it is that it was a notable neologism
6 mostly trivial mentions in google books, one of which is actually an OCR error for "phy- (new line) syology"
No news hits
Google Scholar checks find 6, but most appear to be similar OCR errors or typos. (Mainly for "cytology", at a guess.)
It's not even used in the titles of books: a search of WorldCat finds no books; Amazon and Abebooks had similar 0 results.

There is no evidence this was ever a popular term, or even a minimally notable one. This would be a dubious inclusion on Wiktionary, let alone Wikipedia. The previous debate (archived below) was simply mistaken.

It should probably be noted here that this AfD is solely about the article on the neologism; not about the things it's meant to include, at least one of which, iridology, is a notable, if unscientific, diagnostic technique. They have their own articles, which contain far more information than this one. -The Friendly (but dynamically allocated) IP, 86.176.217.241 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there was a little copyvio (just one sentence), but I had to delete this source from the article while removing the copyvio: http://www.healinggardenjournal.com/articles/0405/mcgill.htm - I think this is the HGJ in the books search, which I suppose goes to show what the few valid results are like. I don't think the rest of the article's copyvio, and I don't think that's a reliable source anyway, but wanted to mention, just so that nothing's concealed. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Utterly non-notable failed neologism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication this is a notable term in independent reliable sources. Yobol (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Extremely limited use in reliable sources. Far too little to indicate that the neologism has gained any level of acceptance notable enough for inclusion in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comments above. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Neutrality^talk 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gave this article the ol' college try a few years back, but this really does look like it would be better redirected to Iridology. That is where Eyeology has pointed for the past six years anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually kinda hate it when I look up some term I don't know, and get redirected to a page that doesn't mention the term, since I'm left no wiser than I was before about what I was looking up, and this term is so obscure that I'm not really convinced it's notable enough to mention in iridology. But others may disagree, and that's fair enough. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 9 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Runt Marr[edit]

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

Seems non-notable based on WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG, but I paused from PROD'ing it because of the Kansas Baseball Hall of Fame, which might establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've found on The Sporting News, he's also been an owner of some of the teams he managed, like Springfield and Joplin. There's a sizable non-routine write-up on him on the July 9, 1942 issue. Crazy guy even traded Carl Hubbell's brother for balls and bats. It looks like he also discovered 11-time all-star Ken Boyer. He was the sole inductee into the Kansas Baseball Hall of Fame in 1953, and I think he's done quite a bit more than the run-of-the-mill minor leaguer, enough to likely warrant passing WP:GNG as opposed to many of the other articles created by the user that made this one. As such, I default to Keep on this one. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He seems to have a decent amount of coverage here and according to this book and this book he seems to have had a chance to sign Mickey Mantle as a Cardinals scout before the Yankees but according to this book he did land Bob Gibson and Ken Boyer for the Cardinals. In addition to the Vodello coverage Vodello found, he seems to merit a keep. Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I think there's just enough coverage found by Vodello and Rlendog for this to scrape past GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:11, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4pm[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A business whose main claim to fame is winning third place in a competition by the Regional Chamber of Commerce for Northern Primorska isn't what I would call notable by any stretch. Searching for sources is a bit tricky, but when I searched Google books, news, and scholar by putting "for project management" in quotes after the company name I found nothing of use. The references already provided don't establish notability. ~T P W 14:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, non-notable software, created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did additional searches on the parent company Arctur, with an eye towards maybe wrapping this into a larger article, but found no relevant hits on news, books, or scholar. If there are sources they aren't available at my local library, so someone else would have to dig them up.--~T P W 20:34, 6 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tara (goddess)[edit]

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

A glorified version of Tara#Religions_and_deities. There is no proof that the Taras in different religions are same or related. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly; more like it's a content fork of Tara (Buddhism) with other alleged deities tossed in. They should instead get separate articles such as Tara (Druidism) and Tara (Polynesian mythology, and all should be linked from the disambiguation page Tara. Don't see Terra or Tarahumara belonging anywhere here. And Terra must be destroyed! - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much of this article seems to come from here,[4] published by Springer, but seemingly referenced to out of print websites, strangely. I tend to agree with Smerdis (except for the last sentence, since I rather like Terra). Other reliable sources seem to confirm the Polynesian, Finnish, and Druid Taras. If there were articles on those, then this could be a simple dab page, Tara (disambiguation). First Light (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And of course I didn't click on Redtigerxyz's link to the dab page Tara#Religions_and_deities, which works for me. First Light (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to Tara. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:22, 12 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvagnini[edit]

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

Company with no significant notability. Does not meet WP:CORP, and written like an advert. Heywoodg ^talk 13:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Unreferenced block of PR text; reads like a copyright violation, though I'm not finding other copies online. Initial notability results don't look all that promising, and Salvagnini is an ordinary personal name, so there will be irrelevant hits in any search engine results. This is an established, 48 year old business, making durable metalworking tools. I wish they added descriptions of what they do to the nice photos of machinery they donated to Commons. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On a very quick search I found this article in Il Sole 24 Ore with some coverage of the subject, but our article as it stands looks like a candidate for speedy deletion as spam. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant WP:SPAM and WP:PROMOTION. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:28, 12 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. No-one has argued for deletion since additional sources were presented. There cannot be a consensus to delete in those circumstances. Mkativerata (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsongs[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of notability given Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) (which, by analogy, also applies to magazines) + WP:CONFLICT (the creator of the article was an editor of the magazine). HairyWombat 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this stub needs a lot of work, but with a rewrite and some additional links feel that this mag could pass the test (among its claims to fame is that it had an issue banned in Queensland. I'll see what I can do, but would welcome the input of others as I won't have time to do a thorough edit of this entry for a couple of weeks. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It really needs to be the other way around; find the references first, then keep. Note that if the stub is deleted then it can always be recreated. I have looked, and found no sources for this magazine. Being banned in Queensland looks more hopeful as it should have produced some news stories. However, for notability, it would be better if these were national sources, not local. HairyWombat 18:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not; I found a page by one of the magazine's creators which mentions the media's lack of interest in the ban. Looks like a Delete to me at present. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added from the Melbourne University Press Encyclopaedia of Science Fiction & Fantasy (1998), edited by Paul Collins. page 143, Steve Proposch: "...launched Australia's first professional horror and dark fantasy magazine, Bloodsongs, with Chris Masters in 1994. The first three issues were edited and published in collaboration, but the next five issues were edited and published by Proposch alone. This is evident in the swing away from graphic horror to a more balanced approach." This suggests to me as evidence of notability ("Australia's first professional horror mag") as well as a reliable source commenting on its trends. Bloodsongs is also discussed in the entry for Dark Fantasy, on page 47 of the MUP Encyclopaedia. Does this help? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 11:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference from Bonescribes: Year's Best Australian Horror 1995, p.135, "A History of Australian Horror" by Bill Congreve, Sean McMullen and Steve Paulsen (I believe that this article was nominated for or won the Milliam Atheling Jr award). "issue 1 received some criticism for tending towards the splatter end of the genre... A Category One Restricted rating by the Attorney General's department saw it restricted to readers 18 years and older, and banned altogether in the state of Queensland." The total description for Bloodsongs runs to almost half a page in a 16 page article that covers approximately 130 years of publishing. I believe this comes closer to carrying this entry over the line under multiple independent references. Punkrocker1991 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Correction to the above, the William Atheling Jr award was won by the article "The Hunt for Australian Horror" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditmar_award_results#1996:_Swancon_21.2C_Perth, of which the above reference is a revised edition. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note I am the original author of this stub. Bloodsongs magazine published a number of young authors and artists for the first time, or in early stages of their careers, if that is of any help. Recent Oscar winner Shaun Tan illustrated a story in Bloodsongs, and authors published included Sean Williams, Rick Kennett, Lucy Sussex, Leanne Frahm, Bryce J. Stevens, and Kirstyn McDermott. Regular contributors included Rob Hood, Bill Congreve and Steven Paulsen. Dubbothedevo (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsongs published an impressive list of writers, but sadly someone will say that notability isn't inherited: i.e. Bloodsongs doesn't become notable just because it published folks who are notable. It's just one of the rules. Do you have any old references kicking around in dead tree form - were there ever any reviews in Van Ikin's Science Fiction, or Aurealis, or Eidolon? I've found a few other minor references, like in the intro to The Year's Best Science Fiction and Fantasy Vol 1 (edited by Strahan and Byrne) but they are minor. Did any stories from Bloodsongs win any awards? That might help. I know that two were reprinted in Bonescribes, did Datlow/Windling reprint any? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 13:45, 12 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lidiya Zabolotskaya[edit]

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

Contested PROD by Gallazaray (talk · contribs) with no reason given. PROD concern was: "Non-notable artist per WP:SINGER. Artist only notable for one event, thus failing WP:1E. No multiple third-party sources to justify notability per WP:GNG either."

I am also nominating the following article for the exact same reason:

Femke Verschueren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 11:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that Gallazaray is a sock of Diogomauricio3 (talk · contribs). Amalthea 19:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both. They are both two-line articles about kids who will be in a song contest, their single claim to fame, such as it is. Both fail WP:1E, as mentioned above. The main article on the contest already has most of what little info is in the articles, so I think a straight delete should be fine. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:30, 11 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. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fenerbahce S.K. foreign players[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Fenerbahce S.K. foreign players

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

Overcategorised list. Players at clubs generally aren't notable solely based on their nationality, especially in modern day football. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for similar reasons. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, classic overcategorisation. List of X players is fine, welcome even - but these articles are a step too far. Giant Snowman 17:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep some~~ – I give up my position. I don't see what notability criteria they fail, as long as there are also Category:Expatriate association football players and Category:Expatriate association football players by nationality for every country. Such lists do classify as encyclopedic content. Plus, some of the clubs do not have List of X players articles, because there is only the category for that. Deleting these lists means losing the possibility to know what foreign players ever played for that club, which in my opinion is a notable information as long as those two categories with their subcategories are. Add that WP:OVERCAT refers to categories and not to articles, but the fact that such nationality categories exist makes these lists even worthier to be kept. BaboneCar (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The categories you mention are nowhere near as specific as the lists I've nominated (you wouldn't expect Category:Manchester United F.C. expatriate footballers to be acceptable for example). We already have lists for foreign players in countries, and even individual leagues, so as GiantSnowman says, extending this to clubs would be a step too far. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed they are near to the lists you've nominated. You might want to know what foreign players have played in a country, what foreign players have played in a specific league, why wouldn't you want to know what foreign players have played for a specific club? The listcruft criteria doesn't mention anything about foreign players of a specific club not being notable. It comes on the same line as the countries and the leagues. After all isn't an encyclopedia about "complete knowledge"? I see that it comes down to only you to decide whether a list of a specific club is more or less notable than one of a country. BaboneCar (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot of them See my bolded statements a little further down. We have comprehensive lists of players (many of which are featured), which list nationals and non-nationals together, along with each player's nationality. There is absolutely no need to list foreigners separately. —WFC— 00:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand your point. Where there are already lists of players, including the foreign players lists in those articles seems logical. But as long as we have all those expatriate categories of and in a country or a league, why shouldn't they be listed separately for a club? In a subsection or a separate article if there's no article for the players of that club? Again, as I've said, an enclyclopedia is about "complete knowledge", where there's notability of the subject of course. What should you do if you wanted to know what foreign players have played for a specific club? Search them by their name resonance in the general category of that club's players? Instead, you can have a list of the foreign players that have played in a country with just one click. BaboneCar (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I share your view on complete knowledge. But if you have a list of players, you can click on the sort button, knowing that the Turkish players will be grouped in one (large) section, and the ones outside of that group are the foreign ones. —WFC— 12:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what's to be done where there's no general list of players of that club? They will lose the possibility to know what were the foreign players that ever played for that club in its history? I think that where such general lists do not exist, the lists of foreign players should be kept. Where general lists of players exist, the lists foreign players should integrated within the general ones. BaboneCar (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is this a hypothetical, or is this actually the case with some of these lists? If so, which ones? —WFC— 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done some original research and I see that only for Fenerbahce S.K., Real Betis and Persepolis F.C. there are general lists of their players. BaboneCar (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In that case, the three lists you mention should be deleted. The rest of them should be moved to List of (club name) players and tagged as incomplete. —WFC— 12:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unreferenced. Calistemon (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not apply to all. Some of them have the references on the players' articles. If there's no article for a player then reference is needed. BaboneCar (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My vote refers to the Fenerbahce article. I've never heard of it being sufficent to just link to an article rather than providing an reliable external reference. I'm pretty sure, Wikipedia is not classed as a reliable source. In any case, sources are easy to come by. Not providing one is just lazynes on behalf of the author or authors and the article is templated accordingly! This link, for example, could be used as source for some of the players. Calistemon (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but it's not a reason for deletion because it can easily be solved. And it was not the reason for which they were nominated. BaboneCar (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence in Wikipedia:Verifiability says pretty clearly why it should be deleted in its current form:"It is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources." Additionally, in its current form it may also violate Wikipedia:No original research. Proper sources can fix both and make it a keeper, in my opinion. Without it, it should go! Calistemon (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and thank god that JMO added that list to his query: what's next: LIST OF LEFT-FOOTED FC BARCELONA FOOTBALLERS IN THE 90'S? :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus should be reached through pertinent arguments. Just saying you don't like them or being satirical I don't think that counts. As I've said, as long as we have categories and lists of foreign players in a country and/or a league, it is notable to have a list with those at a club. In this case, your example is nowhere near to what these lists are about. BaboneCar (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for trying to cheer things up, but i admit i did not elaborate properly. I'll take GiantSnowman's early sentence then: overcategorization. List of "X club" players - if they pass the needed criteria - should contain players from ALL nationalities, we needn't have one with nationals and another with imports, my two cents. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OCAT might refer to categories and not articles, but the same principle applies here. Lists of players who have "played abroad" from India and Iran have been deleted recently; this is pretty much the same thing in the other direction, and, like them, I honestly fail to see the point. Soccer/football stars cross-pollenate a lot between countries, that's the nature of the beast. Your team has somebody from another country playing on it. In other news, dog bites man. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Safwat Morsy[edit]

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

Being a researcher of sharia law, a spiritual teacher or secretary of an association are not automatically notable in an encyclopaedic sense. I find some matches on GNews and two mentions in GBooks, but nothing that would show the significant coverage or being part of the enduring historic record needed to unambiguously meet WP:BIO, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Fæ (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources are not sufficient for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom. I totally agree. The sources are not sufficient for notability. Mr. Safwat Morsy is just a local Imam of a Mosque. It would be like creating a biography of every Reverend at a local Churches. Vilaspendse (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Vilaspendse[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. This is a redirect, not an article, so it doesn't belong at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Take to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk That Talk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of an incubated article. This is the second time in 18 hours that someone has created this article, it's not their fault though, but there is an incubated article already with has gone through AfD. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 09:27, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave India[edit]

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

Article on organization with no references indicating notability. I usually run a low bar for notability on political movements, but this case is an obvious self-promotion stunt and a google search gave zero non-self reference links. Soman (talk) 08:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obvious self-promotion, violates WP:NOR and WP:COI. No evidence of notability whatsoever.--JayJasper (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apex Internet[edit]

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

Non notable ISP. There seems to be a few "Apex Telecom's" floating around but none of them appear notable, and there is no significant coverage/notability for an Apex Internet or Apex Telecom in Canberra, either in news, or a general Google search. It doesn't stand out from any other run of the mill ISP. Heywoodg ^talk 07:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another ordinary ISP advertising on Wikipedia. The article takes some pains to inform us that this business can connect your home or business to the Internet. They also offer web hosting, and Internet phone service. <Ben Stein> Wow. </Ben Stein> - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 9 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. Merging can be discussed on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allochtoon[edit]

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

As far as i'm aware wikipedia is not a Dutch-to-English translation website. If this word is allowed then we will have to add a million other entries from various languages. Pass a Method talk 10:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dutch nationality law, since this seems to be the underlying topic of the article. Yunshui (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be incorrect; many (most?) allochtonen are Dutch nationals and their status has little to do with nationality law. Ucucha (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this was to be merged then I think a better target would be Demographics of the Netherlands. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:17, 21 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, as evidenced by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources:[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. --Lambiam 11:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding nominator's argument that we will have to add a million other entries from various languages if this word is allowed: we don't need articles on, for example, Juust or Sajt, because the concept is adequately covered by our Cheese. However, a few notable topics are so outlandish they only have a foreign name, used in English-language publications for lack of an adequate English equivalent. Therefore our articles on them have foreign-language titles: Adat, Barretina, Chouquette, ... As it is, there is no adequate English equivalent of 'allochtoon', a topic that is (at least in the Low Countries) not only (literally) outlandish, but also hot. And that is why English-language publications use the Dutch term (e.g., here, here and here). --Lambiam 11:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that a merge would be an appropriate way to handle this, but I can't find a clear place to merge it into. That might actually suggest a (weak) reason to keep it, in that the information is not covered elsewhere. In any case, I don't think it should be deleted. The article has as much to do with demographic history and with legal niceties as with the word as a word. Cnilep (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont mind merging it with this; Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Netherlands) Pass a Method talk 11:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  That is just as inappropriate and incorrect a target as Dutch nationality law. The vast majority of people labelled as allochtoon are naturally-born Dutch or Belgian citizens, and have never been in contact with, or the subject of any action or other form of attention of, the Dutch or Belgian Immigration and Naturalisation Services. --Lambiam 12:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - firstly, the nominator's rationale is spurious, as this is clearly not simply a translation of a Dutch word. It's an explanation of a legal and social concept in the Netherlands, which arguably belongs in Wikipedia, although it could be better sourced. I would be open to a merge somewhere; the best target would probably be Demographics of the Netherlands#Migration and ethnicity. But I don't think it has to be done, and this article, though it could use some improvement, does cover a legitimate topic in its own right. Robofish (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note the existence of List of terms for ethnic exogroups, which shows we have plenty of other articles covering similar concepts to this one. Robofish (talk) 16:49, 4 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} 05:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the only argument put forth for deletion is the original nomination, and even the nominator is potentially amenable to merging, this AfD could probably be closed. To merge or not is a separate discussion for the article's talk page. Cnilep (talk) 08:30, 5 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Z-5500[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Reviewed by Maximum PC, Windows Vista, and covered by several books including Building the perfect PC and Leo Laporte's 2006 Gadget Guide. Also reviewed on several web hardware review sites. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do multiple reviews establish notability? I don't think so. See WP:PRODUCT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Alan Liefting is just jelly because he doesn't have one. I have one and I am sure its bass can pound Alan so hard in his face that he wouldn't be able to finish those words he just mentioned before he is knock down to the ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.64.251.110 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 22 September 2011
- You comments are not relevant in an AfD, besides, I don't have an iPad, a Ferrari or the Mona Lisa but I am not putting them up for deletion. As someone who generally eschews the consumer lifestyle I don't get jealous about the possessions that others own. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:40, 1 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple reviews in magazines (in fact, more than RJH listed) and coverage in books. I would say notable (even though I don't own one). Moswento (talk | contribs) 10:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do multiple reviews establish notability? I don't think so. See WP:PRODUCT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Un-notable consumer product; not the first, biggest, best, last, most dangerous, etc., just another shelf-filler. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports and next year it will be replaced by the Z-5600. No encyclopediac value to a paraphrase of the advertising brochure. Reviews in magazines are just another form of advertising; of course there's lots of them, that's what the manufacturer's PR department is paid to do. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not a directory of every consumer product ever offered for sale, and per Wtshymanski Non-notable product. Edison (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article smacks of promotion and/or "how-to" in places. Fails the GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 5 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} 05:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refreshing my deletion comment - We've already zapped a couple of other speaker articles, yes, I know otherstuffexists. But the argument for this one is no better than for the others, and it's only because we haven't had more people chime in that we've had to relist this *twice*. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another product on the shelf. Almost every product gets reviewed, so product reviews don't proof notability. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:33, 12 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. The article still needs a lot of work, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crouzet[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)

Article appears purely promotional in nature and not consistent with NPOV. In addition I have conflict of interest concerns in respect of the similarity between the company name and the creating user account. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NPOV and COI problems can be rectified through careful editing. I'd say the bigger problem here is the lack of any references. Even with independent sources I don't think this would pass WP:CORP. Several Times (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm really a fan of Crouzet products. Please let me know the part that you find inappropriate. Best Regards, Greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrégoryHBK (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem is that the article is not cited to secondary sources that discuss the company in detail. That's a requirement on Wikipedia. Also, passages such as "Widely recognized for over 50 years as the specialist in el ectromechanical, electronic technology and software engineering, Crouzet's experience in time management, physical and mechanical values has resulted in an extensive automation components" make it seem like the article is trying to talk people into buying their products, which is also a problem. See WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV for more. My hunch is that this might actually pass WP:CORP but would need some serious cleanup to be kept. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit it with a chainsaw and KEEP. At 90 years old and 1300 employees, they certainly could meet wp:notability, and substantive encyclopedic material is likely in their diverse product areas and history. But the material sounds like their internal literature, and it has no real references. Looks like this is due to a green green editor and a just-created article rather than blatant advertising. North8000 (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been looking for this company since a while my grand parent use to have Crouzet things that are still running.

Text is alright but will be better with more references.(Nicom69) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicom69 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to point out that Nicom69, along with GrégoryHBK, is a newly registered user with no other editing activity. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cleaned it, hope this version fits your expectations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.53.77.124 (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above is the only edit made by the anon, no edits made to the article under this address. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - On the topic of chainsawing, I've removed the history section as it was a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a dreadful article, although a little less so now. But the company appears to be significant in the sensor industry. There is coverage about one of their products here. As part of Sextant Avionique, they sell through the aircraft industry [17]. Specialised sensors for naval use are documented here, and here. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and keep per Whpq. A very specialized business, but they seem to have been around enough to have some significance in the history of their field. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore history, this company looks mature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.49.149.243 (talk) 20:13, 1 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} 05:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup.--Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising and non compliance with NPOV, unless this gets a drastic re-write, soon.Petebutt (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources cited above by user:Whpq. Topic appears to pass notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northamerica1000 has done a lot of work on the article, it fine now. Sources have been found. Dream Focus 12:40, 12 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Curry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability for a Wiki article not apparent in the article. See also; this article's first nomination for deletion. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor academic with no real attempt at asserting notability. I gather the last time around he was the butt of some embarrassment but this version doesn't even mention it and in any case it wasn't deemed embarrassing enough to save the article. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. With GS cites all under 10 fails WP:Prof#C1 by a large margin. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think that salting is not necessary; nevertheless, I would welcome the deletion of this article. Snowman (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—is it not possible that this and then this, and then finally this are enough to base an article on? i agree, of course, that the current article is ridiculous and should be blanked, and also that his scientific work gives no traction whatsoever for a notability argument. however, since ghits on the putatively misreported story are spread far and wide across the world, and articles explaining the other side of the kerfuffle are not so easy to find, is it not possible that we should have a short article explaining what happened? after all, it did happen, and people might want to know about it. if there were a suitable target, i'd suggest a redirect to it; something like Controversy over Oliver Curry and the Direction of Human Evolution or something like that that's better phrased? but perhaps that ain't notable either, which is why i'm not taking a position yet.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does not seem to be saying anything that was not said a century earlier by H. G. Wells and not much notice seems to have been taken of what he did say. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 2 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} 05:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E.Ampersandestet (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Inserting comment misplaced by EntropicPonderer at 21:48, September 28, 2011, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Curry(2nd nomination): "The article Oliver Curry is a very valid article for Wikipedia. The call for deletion meets none of the criteria of the deletion policy." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User EntropicPonderer created the page. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I am not the only one who caught that. Ampersandestet (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my opinion as nominator. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:12, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Web2Carz.com[edit]

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

Probably promotional. All but the single first ref are there to back up the claim that the website generates favourable results for buyers. Also, I don't think being listed at 523 is not that notable. It hasn't received any awards or high-quality coverage in the media. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 05:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:CORP. No depth of coverage, and nothing inherently notable about the company Heywoodg ^talk 09:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 9 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. causa sui (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norman W. Walker[edit]

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

Fails general notability guidelines and WP:BIO. No evidence of coverage in independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article are mostly genealogical, and even they can't seem to figure out if this is the right Norman Walker (underscoring the lack of notability). MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A short google search shows this guy massively referenced in alternative literature, as he is the "father of juicing". Mostly with a lot of very wrong but impressive claims about his longevity, such as the idea that he lived to be 117. The biographical information in this article makes it quite clear that this is the same Norman W. Walker of juicing fame, and that he only lived to be 99. That fact alone is enough to justify this article on his life. S B H arris 22:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that he's massively referenced in the alternative literature, I had a hard time finding anything resembling an independent, reliable source. Have you had better luck? MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have independent reliable sources for the historicitity of the man himself. Because of census records (ordinarily considered reliable sources) we are much more confident about when this guy lived and died than we are about when (say) Jesus lived and died. There will never be an article Historicity of Norman W. Walker, as there is Historicity of Jesus. But the existence of the article on the Historicity of Jesus, based as it is upon the problems with LACK of accurate and reliable information about Jesus, is no reason to propose the deletion of Jesus here on WP, is it? (If you think so, try it!). As to what proponents of various belief-systems say about Norman W. Walker, they are as accurate and reliable about THEMSELVES as are believers in any philosophy or religion (as accurate about what they believe as are various believers in things about Jesus, for example, though these things may have no accurate or reliable basis per se). That's long been a tenet of WP: we let believers speak for themselves about their beliefs, and assume they are accurate and reliable sources for same. I believe you've been down this road about alternative medicine itself, which in many ways is just one more religion? Have you not? Indeed, there are are things about orthodox medicine which have been taken on faith, and which turned out not to be true (the general goodness of statin drugs for everybody with high LDLs; the goodness of HRT for postmenopausal women, etc, etc, etc). S B H arris 19:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of your philosophical points, but don't really want to get dragged off-topic in this venue. Jesus and his historicity are clearly encyclopedic subjects, because there is an extensive reputable, scholarly literature on both topics, some of it written by believers and some not.

My problem is that I'm not finding any sources about Norman W. Walker that are independent and reliable enough to build an encyclopedic biography. I don't doubt his historical existence, but historical existence alone isn't really sufficient for notability. I'm trying to figure out whether there are independent, reliable sources covering him, and I have failed to find such sources. In their absence, not only does he seem to fail the relevant notability guidelines, but more importantly, I don't see how one can write a biography worthy of a serious encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how this person meets notability requirements at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you google "Norman W. Walker" you get about 500,000 hits, mostly due to his seven books and many mentions in secondary literature. There's no question that he meets notability guidelines on his impact on the U.S. heathfood movement alone. One could write a fairly long article just on what these secondary sources say about his amazing health. Is all of it correct? No, much of it is wishful thinking, and (particularly the age stuff) frank error. So what? These are published sources, and the errors themselves are notable, since widely perpetuated. Most of the documented biographical stuff appears to have been discovered by this woman: [18]. There is more than enough for a bio stub, and if one adds what the health books say, more than that. Hmmm. Are you two perhaps pulling my leg? Are you really aware of the quality of biography on WP? Nearly 1000 of the biographies on LIVING subjects have no cites AT ALL. Nor do I think that many of these have published books, marketted products (the Norwalk Press juicer), or would get you half a million google hits. S B H arris 00:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Three quick notes - there are about 140 articles in Category:All unreferenced BLPs, and every one of them (barring any new articles since this post) are on AFD as unreferenced BLPs. Second comment: WP:WAX for why 'other stuff exists' (with worse problems, the same problems, more problems, whatever) is not a useful argument in deletion discussions. Thirdly, GHits does not by itself denote notability. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest that G-Hit "by itself" denotes notability. But the relevant guideline WP:BIO states that a valid notability criterion is The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Google hits show that is the case here, as the "field" (machine-assisted fruit and vegetable juicing for health purposes) was basically invented by this man. The validity and size of the "field" is demonstated by the amount of present public interest in it, just like any other public health interest (veganism, for example). The number google hits shows this practice to be very popular and associated with a signficant commercial presense.
A comment on WP:ATA (WP:WAX) and WP:OTHERSTUFF (WP:OSE) is that these essays (not guidelines or policies) are self-contradictory and poorly-concieved. Both of them assert that comparisons with standard practice are arguments to avoid, while at the same time admitting that such arguments are all that separate current notability policies-in-practice from others (for example, intrinsic notability of all high schools, vs. no such thing for junior high schools), and that as such these arguments are not only perfectly valid, but the ONLY arguments that exist to defend present policy-in-practice for many notability categories. As self-contradictory and therefore illogical essays, I personally think that WP:ATA and WP:OSE should themselves be avoided (and all mention of them avoided) until the people who use them and think about them do some thinking about just what it is that they actually want to say. In their essays. Once this has been done, perhaps we can downgrade them from "stupid essays" to merely "essays." But they still won't be policy or guideline until incorporated into policy or guideline. S B H arris 18:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the number of google hits shows nothing aside from the fact that there is x google hits. It is the actual analysis of the results from the google hits revealing that demonstrates notability. One needs to actually look at the results and delve into the sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The entire science of statistics exists to keep me from having to delve too much. 30 pages into such a google search, I'm still getting published articles, advertisements, and mentions in print about the relevant Norman W. Walker, the subject. Here is one from page 30: [19]. He's notable. S B H arris 20:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google Book search turns up lots of references indicating he was a leading proponent of juicing. A few examples are: [20], [21], [22], [23]. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This gives him a sentence in a kind of cookbook published by a book publishing company called Book Publishing Company. This is a hagiography by someone who claims him as his great role model (who lived to be 116, of course), and look at the publication information for the book (for the uninitiated: this is not a reliable source). This makes the claim for the 'invention' of juicing, and again this is a book that can't be called reliable (though it is available in larger quantities, with a discount). In this one he lives to be 118, but who's counting. Not a single one of these books was published by a reputable press. That something got printed is often, as in this case, a crime against trees rather than the solid verification of disputed facts. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 7 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} 05:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Whpq. That many sources are unreliable doesn't override the fact that the subject meets the GNG via a much smaller set of RS's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a formal recommendation, per my many comments above. S B H arris 17:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There appears to be several mentions of Walker in books. Perhaps reliable secondary sources can be found to further qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Yes, perhaps such sources can be found. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my single comment above. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WorldCat shows his books were translated from English into 12 other languages [24]. We normally consider that notability for an author. This is somewhat borderline, but that's what decided me. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DGG's reasoning that based on the WorldCat results he is notable. Dream Focus 16:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Walker passes WP:BIO, as evidenced by "Visions of the Pioneers: Norman W. Walker" from Alive Magazine, "Norman Walker" from The Raw Food Lifestyle: The Philosophy and Nutrition Behind Raw and Live Foods, a book review of Pure and Simple, Natural Weight Control from the Vegetarian Times, and this from Juice Alive: The Ultimate Guide to Juicing Remedies. Goodvac (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very organized, it is a true biography artical to me, just needs an improvenent of sources. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a reasonable attempt to provide a balanced biography of a controversial individual. The rescuers need to improve the sources. There appears to be a great deal of information available online about this man. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per more found sources thanks to user:Goodvac, some of which I added to the article:

Richards, Doris E. (October 1992.) Visions of the Pioneers: Norman W. Walker: Juice Man Alive: Canada's Natural Health & Wellness Magazine, Issue 123, p10, 2p. ISSN 0228586X
Russo, Ruthann "The Raw Food Lifestyle: The Philosophy and Nutrition Behind Raw and Live Foods."
Bailey, Steven; Trivieri, Larry (2007.) "Juice Alive: The Ultimate Guide to Juicing Remedies." Square One Publishers. ISBN 0-7570-0266-8

Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:48, 12 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. Arguments to keep (outside of North8000) amount to: (1) it's no worse than other articles in the same category, (2) we can't get good sources for something this obscure, and (3) keep it but rewrite it. These aren't rationales grounded in policy and there's no case being made for why precedent shouldn't apply here, so delete. causa sui (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UK Alfa Romeo Owners Club[edit]

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

No indications of notability. Was REFUNDed from a previous PROD but article unchanged since. HighKing (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although if WP:RS references can be added, no objections to keeping. WP:GNG states an article should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that does not exist on this organization. --HighKing (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. This article is no more or less notable than any of the others in its category, and it is referenced to the same extent as most of the others - better in some cases, so delete all or none, but not just this one. The only distinguishing feature of this article is that it contains the word British Isles, which is why the whole article has been suggested for deletion. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This editor only revived this article because I had originally tagged it for deletion. The editor promised to add references on condition it was refunded, which the editor did not do. Please note that this editor has not been indef blocked for following my edits around (this article cited) and related behaviour - . --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the text is BS, it's a 45 year old national club with 4,0000 members. Existence of sources suitable for wp:notabity is likely. North8000 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I've no objections to keeping if sources can be found. You say sources are likely - yet I've looked and I can't find anything suitable, and the article has been tagged for months without any. Skywatcher above had the article REFUNDED after a PROD delete and promised to add refs. That was over a week ago and still nothing. --HighKing (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article stands it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Mt king ^(edits) 21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC) see below Mt king ^(edits) 07:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should probably declare that I have a small WP:COI in that I drive and Alfa Mt king ^(edits) 21:48, 20 September 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 16:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:ORG. it is irrelevant that other similar clubs exist. gets a sole gnews hit. [25]. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references out there and two of them are given in the article. You're not exactly going to get "academic" references on this sort of stuff, so other web references are adequate. WoodMuncher (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Better referenced than some other articles in that same category -->Typ932 ^T·C 04:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have being giving this some thought over the last week, and am having some difficulty in accepting that this nom is totally in good faith given the nominators British Isles editing restriction so for that reason I feel I have to withdraw my Delete !vote. However the article as written does not meet WP:GNG, so I find I am unable to !vote keep for that reason. However it is reasonable to assume that other off-line sources probably exist, so I would urge the closing admin if they believe there is consensus to delete that they might consider alternatives such as the article incubator. Mt king ^(edits) 07:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG like other articles about car owner' clubs. I can't even see how one self-reference count as a valid reliable third party source when it is its own magazine, that is unless sole self reference from its own website counts, I can't see how it is a worthy source material and the other, what is it, a car manufacturer visiting a club meeting; don't we get this happening a lot, therefore manufacturer's support is nothing uncommon in car clubs. Donnie Park (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't made my mind up about this yet. But I have seen that there aren't that many other car clubs in Wikipedia, so it could be deleted. On the other hand it isn't really fair to: the user who added it; and the club: because there are other car club pages, wouldn't the other car club pages have to be deleted too? —Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 09:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is if they can't meet notability guidelines per WP:ORG; Saleen Owners and Enthusiasts Club, Buick Club of America, Wheels of Italy, Audi Club North America and Quantum Owners Club are the potential candidates for deletion since they have all failed that. At least that will serve as a warning to others who wish to use Wikipedia for the purpose of self promotion, but then somebody can do all that as I'm not in a position to play Wiki Grim Reaper. Donnie Park (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok well if they don't meet ORG then why not delete them all? I don't see a problem with being a "Wiki Grim Reaper". I mean spamming is spamming. But the Buick Club of America (just a EX.) isn't a for-profit company. It is much the same as Wikipedia. Just instead of info, it's preservation of Buicks. (Wow you'd think I was a member! <Laughter />) I'm saying that who draws the line (link <Laughter />). So I could go either way still. The Alfa club is a stub, so it could be deleted before too much more work goes into it. —Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 03:09, 5 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} 05:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:ORG and Wikipedia is not a directory. The fact that other similar pages exist is no reason to keep and they should be nominated too. Heywoodg ^talk 10:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why was just this article nominated at the first place, when there is even worse articles, those should be deleted before this one. -->Typ932 ^T·C 02:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I this were a new-ish article I would say keep. But it has been around for seven years so.. As a constructive suggestion could we perhaps have an article called Alfa Romeo Owners Clubs. If you drew together the references from the organisations in UK, US and Italy you could probably have a passable article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is a great idea Tigerboy1966. I mean we have a "Car Club" page. Why not some examples of what I car club is? I will even go as far as saying that we should point out the differences between car clubs on the same subject, eg Alpha car clubs of the world. (Please don't just don't call it that though! <laughter />) ——Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 03:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, with the refs being non-reliable and saying nothing about the topic respectively.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but re-write. I like Tigerboy1966's idea a lot (see the last "Comment" above). I think that the there should be articles on Buick car clubs; Alpha car clubs etc. IMO Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 02:24, 13 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 redirect to Sky News reporters and presenters. causa sui (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hewson[edit]

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

I cannot see the RS support for notability. Perhaps others will be able to. Epeefleche (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011

Strong Delete No, no, no. This article (A) Has little to no importance (there are thousands of reporters, there shouln't be a page for each of them, I could see if it was Katie Couric or Dan Rather) and (B) no notability, the reference of her changing her name does not show how she is a well-known reporter. Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Hewson is a bit more than a reporter. She's actually a co-presenter on one of Sky's main programmes, which I would imagine does make her very notable, and certainly comparable with someone like David Gregory or Anita Anand. Boulton & Co is a daily polotical discussion programme which airs internationally on the channel. Hewson is also Sky's Royal Correspondent and quite well known in the UK. I have provided a reference (albeit an offline one) for her name change and a little more information. More references would be good, and I'll keep looking. If the decision on this is not to keep, then I would suggest at the very least that it should be a redirect to Sky News. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you indicate what wikipedia notability criteria you feel she meets? Things such as "quite well known in the UK" and the indicated reference don't strike me as meeting our notability standards. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closest guideline we have for this seems to be WP:ENT, which I think, being a main presenter on Sky, she does just about pass. Apparently I created this article, although I don't remember doing so. Might I suggest a section in the guidelines covering broadcast journalists, and journalists in general? For example, I worked for a local daily newspaper for ten years so I wouldn't expect to see an article about myself on here, but there might be a case to include someone who presents a regular national news bulletin. We have lots of these type articles floating around, and though other crap exists the notability of many others could be called into question. TheRetroGuy (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to make such a suggestion would be at the notability guideline in question, where I expect it would attract some comment. Discussion here will only impact this AfD, but not the guideline. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'll start a discussion there. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a complete failure of WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. I would agree with a redirect to Sky News along with the potential for recreation without prejudice in the future should her notability change. Trusilver 01:40, 28 September 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} 05:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, we need indepth content about her personally, which I'm not seeing. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sky News or Boulton & Co as a borderline WP:ENT. Obviously known for being a presenter on Sky and Boulton, but not outside that. Bootlegbobby (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others have suggested since she doesn't yet seem to pass the notability standards. Sky News reporters and presenters is another option. Location (talk) 17:42, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cara-C[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Zero reliable secondary sources. A glance at article's talkpage shows that untrue claims-to-fame have been removed in the past so I'm inclined to doubt every single "fact" on this article as none are backed up by WP:RS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regret; only because I did a lot of cleanup on it, and I hate to see that go. But a cleaned-up article on an unnotable subject is still an article on a unnotable subject. TJRC (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 30 September 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} 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 9 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. Redirect to British American Football League after deletion The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyside Nighthawks[edit]

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

Article is unreferenced and has had no material edits in almost 2 years.
Debatably notable UK American Football team. There is nothing other than a small smattering of available references about the team. The most notable of these are 3 match reports on the Daily Mirror's American Football blog across a year, with a further 4 mentions in a list of match results in the previous year. I am inclined to suggest that if the team was in anyway notable, the very least we could expect would be the score at their game for every match? Besides the Mirror's blog coverage, there is coverage with inconsistent regularity in a handful of local papers such as the Southport Visiter (sic) (circ 12,000) - 2 articles inc an appeal for new players, Wirral Globe (free-sheet), Wirral News (free-sheet), Liverpool Echo and Liverpool Daily Post (the latter 2 are sister titles of each other). Besides that I found a single book on Google Books which uses Wikipedia as its source.
Having just deleted out the history section that was cut and paste from [26]. We are left with a lead that says little that can't be found in the table on List of American football teams in the United Kingdom and a series of apparently indiscriminate and incomplete lists. The majority of these lists probably dont belong in an encyclopaedia article. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources outside team website it seems.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its parent league, British American Football League. I share the nominator's concern that there doesn't seem to be consistent independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. However, sources are not required to be online, so perhaps someone can identify offline sources that establish notability.—Bagumba (talk) 15:25, 28 September 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} 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Ghosh[edit]

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

Non-Notable singer. There are no references. Usvi Kasine (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could the nominator please explain why the sources found by the Google Books search linked in the nomination shouldn't be accepted as evidence of notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. No references except self references and also taged for references but no improvement since one year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.53.82 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — 203.99.53.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I've added some references to the article demonstrating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this person meets notability requirements at all. No reliable sources available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.106.68 (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — 119.154.106.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And what about the reliable sources in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete-Fails every measure of Notability for Wikipedia. Not even a single reliable source supports its keep. The sources given are questionable.Ezaid Fabber (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Ezaid Fabber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Questionable in what way? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a pioneer in play back singing in Indian Cinema. Her songs are also available on youtube as well. sids 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources found using the Google Books search include The Illustrated Weekly of India and Cinema Vision India (mentioned by at least five other articles).--Northernhenge (talk) 21:31, 5 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. Whether she has a "cult following" is irrelevant as long as she passes WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anina (model)[edit]

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

Not notable, WP:BLP. Posted for nominator Domenico.y per this edit. JFHJr (㊟) 23:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, WP:BLP Domenico.y (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable or not, the references and available online sources do not assert notability for Wikipedia. Some of the IP edits in 2007 are clearly by the subject herself. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Online sources such as Wired.Com confirm notability for being a fashion model tech-geek[27], and she is apparently has a huge following in China.[28][29] Rednevog (talk) 19:32, 3 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMODEL for having a cult following in China. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: regarding the cult following, the article reads, "She has a huge following in China," supported by: 1) this passing statement "Anina – a Paris-based American model who, with her cartoonish dress and love of all things tech, is apparently building a huge following in China." 2) this Q&A with the subject. The language ("is apparently building") of the first cite doesn't entirely support the contention, and the Q&A with a Chinese reporter talking about China doesn't have anything about her following there. If notability will rest in any part on a huge cult following, are there other sources to show it? I googled a bit in English and Chinese (阿妮娜) and didn't find much about her huge following. JFHJr (㊟) 01:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just having a 'cult following' does not satisfy the rigour of Wikipedia policies for inclusion and verifiable reliable sources.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently she is a top model in China according to this article by China Daily which featured her [30]. I've added that source to the article, as well as another reliable source citation from an article that featured her in the French language on Clubic here [31]. The article itself still needs to be trimmed to remove promotional materials and uncited claims, but she does appear to pass WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of the claims in this article are not referenced. 'Cult following' by who and I checked and it did not fulfill the criteria of verifiable reliable sources and some of the sources do not meet WP:BLP because they are not referenced, therefore Not notable. Domenico.y (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Farber[edit]

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

This is an article about an author/consultant that fails our general notability guidelines as well as the specific notability guidelines for creative professionals as the subject hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, nor has he had a notable impact within his fields. In addition, the article appears to have been created by his publisher with a conflict of interest. Them From Space 20:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 30 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources; fails notability. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:28, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Evans (humanitarian)[edit]

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

Bio of non-notable person per WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:BLP. After significant cleanup of sources that were neither reliable, third-party, nor multiple, the subject clearly lacks notability. While the subject won an assumedly notable award, not every recipient is necessarily notable enough to merit a stand-alone article. While objectively well-accomplished at a young age, the subject lacks encyclopedic notability. Least of all, he hasn't been established as a particularly notable humanitarian in his field by any reliable peer or media coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've gone ahead and added some of the reliable source cites I have found which focus on Evans including [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. He appears to pass WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Non-notable person per WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:BLP. While Evans has assumed a Young Australian of the Year Award, that is not notable in itself, as many people have achieved that award and do not have wikipedia entries. And those are interviews (those references that ConcernedVancouverite cited - not actual stories about Evans. Domenico.y (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[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} 00:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added additional reliable source citations regarding his involvement with the Global Poverty Project. The subject seems to be well above WP:GNG criteria for notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Non-notable person per WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:BLP still.

The Global Poverty Project was deleted, as this was not notable. ConcernedVancouverite's statement is false. Whatever I choose to nominate or deletion, ConcernedVancouverite fights hard for the article to be kept. It is a case of "I say white, ConcernedVancouverite says black." Is ConcernedVancouverite's interactions with me banned for bullying and general spitefulness? Who do I speak to to enforce this? Domenico.y (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Comment - I find this personal attack by Domenico kind of odd as I !voted on this AfD prior to him. Additionally, he has now !voted delete twice on this AfD, which is really not appropriate. In any case, keeping the focus on the content of the AfD, the sources which he has now deleted from the article include Global Poverty Project Launches from The Tab, which focuses on Evans and the Global Poverty Project; Show your support for End Polio Now on World Polio Day from Rotary International News, Cross 'represents triumph over death' from the Sydney Morning Herald, and Global Poverty Pushed Up Agenda from PoliticsCo UK. There is additional reliable source coverage Gen Y-not tackles world poverty from ABC News (Australia). The WP:GNG is sufficient to keep the Hugh Evans article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was resisted for 'generating a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached'. It's not a matter of votes anyway, the editors inform us.

The Global Poverty Project page looks much better now with references and citations. Good work, ConcernedVancouverite. The Hugh Evans article is better referenced as well and is much more notable than 7 days ago, so I vote * Keep for the Hugh Evans article. How do I change my vote? How do you strike out the delete text please? Domenico.y (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Global Poverty Project has now been restored to article space as it has been more effectively sourced. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news archive search for his name and the word "humanitarian". [37] The first result is here. [38] Speaks a lot about him, and his achievements, and links to the television interview done with him. Reliable sources exist covering him in detail, and not just because of that one organization. Others have found reliable sources also. Dream Focus 11:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, including but not limited to: [39], [40], [41], [42]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many of the sources are non-ondependent PR-based. I view this withthe same skepticism as junior league athletes, and I consider the snews ources, respectable though they may be considered, as engaging in sentimental human interest journalism typical of tabloids. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, could you please clarify which of the currently cited sources in the article you view as non-independent? Looking over them it appears that many are independent. Perhaps you could delete those you feel are non-independent so we can look at a cleaner version of the article to decide? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject clearly meets WP:BIO, as evidenced by "Young Australian of Year" and "We must all fight for justice, says young winner" from The Sydney Morning Herald; "Driven by poverty, powered by youth", "A man with his mind on the world", and "Out to change the world" from The Age; and "Sowing seeds of change" from the Herald Sun.
And it looks like DGG (talk · contribs) isn't looking at the right article. I see no indication that the articles establishing notability are non-independent. They are all written by secondary, reputable sources. Goodvac (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I judge the independence by the tone: they are based on his PR, as is this article. Agreed, its a matter of judgment, not proof. Let me ask, if this is not an attempt at PR, why the several overlapping articles here with essentially the same content.? DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, could you be more specific which articles you feel are overlapping? Prior to !voting on this AfD I did my WP:BEFORE research and turned up numerous articles. Since the nomination stated that there were, "neither reliable, third-party, nor multiple" sources I went ahead and added them. If you feel some of them are non-independent or non-reliable, please do let us know which specific ones and/or remove them from the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly referenced enough, just not very long, could be built upon. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable given the sources provided by ConcernedVancouverite. --99of9 (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By winning the 2004 Young Australian of the Year, Evans meets point 1 of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honour". In addition, Evans meets the WP:GNG anyway. He has significant coverage in major sources, such as The Australian, the ABC, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the Herald Sun, etc. (see the !votes of ConcernedVancouverite and Goodvac for the links). Jenks24 (talk) 06:16, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sapna Tanveer[edit]

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

Taking it here rather than continuing to back and forth adding/removing the BLPPROD tag. No reliable sources have been added, nor was I able to find any, which verify the existence or notability of this actress. Language issues may be in play. joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, searching on Sapna Tanvir (another transliteration of the Hindi, arguably closer) gives lots of porn sites. Notable in a way, I suppose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I've added that spelling above. Not seeing anytihng immediately that would go toward WP:PORNBIO, but I'll look more. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:39, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources. I believe the article fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when you note hits using a variation of the name on porn sites, please include a disclaimer that it might not be the same person. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:33, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Stoller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like a resume, doesn't meet notability guidelines. Arbor8 (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no reliable sources. Ref 10 is even "^ "Page Not Found". ndnpac.org. Archived from the original on 2007-02-09. Retrieved 2007-02-27." William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - setting aside the reliable sources issues (of which there are a number), the only claim to notability appears to be being past president of an organisation (MyDD) that itself doesn't appear notable. --Deadly∀ssassin 22:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News archive has tons of RS's evidencing subject's notability as a political activist and blogger--Weekly Standard, NY Times, salon.com, politico, The Atlantic, etc. I've added a couple to the page as references. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment notability coverage should be significant enough as to not require original research. The coverage in 2005 New York Times article is not substantial. A whole bunch of these snippets doesn't make for notability. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MyDD Article reads like a resume. Arbor8 (talk) 14:50, 26 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article references a whole bunch to subject's own work and pages. The subject-serving, fame creating nature of the article is quite obvious. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:08, 30 September 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} 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to MyDD. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO for lack of in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not for posting résumé. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:44, 12 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 to delete. There is substantial and well-argued support for a redirect, and this may indeed be the correct outcome. I suggest that discussion continues on the talk page about that. What this AfD has found is that this material should not become a redlink. NAC—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Suozzi[edit]

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

Unnecessary; has two real entries at most. It had five when I found it (three blue, two red), but I removed one that failed MOS:DABENTRY guidelines and nominated another for deletion.

If the entry for Ralph Suozzi is deleted, there's only one viable link so this page would be clearly unnecessary. If that entry is kept, I think we can get along with a hatnote unless the two other non-notables do something amazing down the line. ~T P W 16:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notified WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy since i couldn't otherwise see how to sort.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You've got two notable name-holders, so you cannot have Suozzi redirect to either of them as an ((R from surname)). The usual approach is then to create a surname list article in the anthroponymy project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's down to one notable name-holder per another deletion discussion. --~T P W 16:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  It still seems either a keep (for the two blue links, even though one is now a redirect), or keep & redirect to Thomas Suozzi as an ((R from surname)) -- possibly then with a hatnote for Ralph Suozzi on Thomas's article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think a redirect would be excessive; a Google news search for "Suozzi" only yields hits on Tom for many pages. People who want to look for non-notable Ralph know his first name, or will back into it via Glen Cove, New York. In short, a redirect is more than this deserves.--~T P W 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's a guideline for backing up the claim for not "deserving" a redirect. Clearly the surname exists, and clearly there's a notable name holder. A page should exist at the title "Suozzi"; the question is now is it a surname-holder list (Tom + Ralph) or a redirect (Tom). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:26, 11 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thomas Suozzi. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:47, 12 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wyne Su Khaing Thein[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this Burmese pop singer, model and actress. A few videos and such, but nothing from a reliable source in either English, or, to the best of my ability, Burmese. The Burmese Wikipedia only sources her to her personal page. Unsourced BLP since 2009. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 29 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is an unsourced Biography of a living person. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable third party sources. The article fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:38, 9 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. Mkativerata (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Muramatsu[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this composer of anime scores under WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CSE search of "村松健" on the Oricon ranking website. --Malkinann (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails every measure of notability that I can think of. Not many credits, no awards/nominations, no creative/innovative contribution. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 23:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSICBIO #10 Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc He did all of the music of various notable shows, including the theme songs. Dream Focus 09:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no reliable secondary sources have been found to back up notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:43, 2 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The external links are not of the kind that assert notability. What are needed are biographical articles in the established media. None found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just found one. [43] Information about him on the official website of a series he worked on. Dream Focus 01:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone look into that link more? I'm not comfortable voting keep or delete since the evidence isn't good either way, and that link seems to say one of his albums "gained immense popularity", which might qualify him under one of the less contentious criteria of WP:MUSIC. --Gwern (contribs) 00:42 10 October 2011 (GMT)

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I don't consider this to establish notability because it is not a secondary source. Claims such as "gained immense popularity" by primary sources should not be accorded much weight unless supported by secondary sources. Cunard (talk) 23:04, 14 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaud Barbaras[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable philosopher. Was debating deleting via A7 but decided to get more input. Kwsn (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. Renaud Barbaras is getting more and more influential in phenomenology circles, creating a very personal philosophy. His researches are included as part of the revival of phenomenology in France in PROF. DR. LASZLO TENGELYI's NEUE PHÄNOMENOLOGIE IN FRANKREICH, along with Marc Richir's and Jean-Luc Marion's. --Malone25 (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 14 in a low cited field passes WP:Prof#C1 rather well. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—not only meets wp:prof as noted by Xxanthippe, but almost certainly satisfies WP:GNG as well. here are three rs which discuss barbaras's work: one, and two, and three. also, although he doesn't seem to occupy a named chair, he is a full professor at the sorbonne, which is probably a more prestigious post than most named chairs not at the sorbonne. that's not important, though, due to his being discussed in reliable sources.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:04, 5 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. Accusations of WP:SPAM do not hold their weight against actual reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalLogic[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable business.

Contested proposed deletion. After tagging for WP:PROD, User:GlobalLogic added a bunch of alleged "sources", but going through them reveals that they are press releases or press release based stories, announcing routine acquisitions, financing deals, and the openings of facilities; neither significant coverage nor truly independent sources. (Hint: when the "sources" say stuff like a leading global provider of outsourced product development services or the leader in global product development (GPD), that isn't an independent source.) Many are on IT-related spamblogs or PR aggregators and other small-audience forums.

My own search finds similar results: a whole lot of press releases announcing routine transactions. Searching for the former name IndusLogic yields similar results[44]. But the problem is, even if better sources can be found, the article will still be about an IT outsourcing business. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delet. WP:SPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It would be helpful to specifically state which part of the WP:SPAM guideline page is being referred to. Referring to entire guideline pages doesn't qualify an article deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Smerdis's rationale seems to run counter to the instructions at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which never states that we cannot have articles about IT outsourcing firms. It also suggests trying to clean up articles before deleting them. Searching indicates that the article has certainly received significant independent coverage. I'll try to clean up the article a bit, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that no IT outsourcing firm can ever be notable. I do think that IT businesses in general tend to spring up quickly, are as easily bought out by others, don't market to the general public under their own brands, aren't going to become household names, aren't going to get much notice outside of publications that serve only that trade, and as such aren't going to be promising subjects for stand alone articles. My position is that any commercial business needs to show some kind of significant effect on history, technology, or culture before it gets a standalone article. Notability is not temporary; finding a business notable means that people will still care five hundred years from now, and I suspect most IT businesses will fail that test.

Because money is involved, a lot of text will be generated, and as such it's hard to process signal out of the noise and find coverage that independently tells us something significant about the business. I don't count the dozens of announcements in the self-congratulatory "we've gotten financing! we won a contract! we were at a trade show! we opened a branch! we bought out somebody! we've been bought out!" vein; and I didn't find anything that falls outside any of those categories. If you can find better, have at it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:19, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge or redirect or something. Well, there is some coverage out there - 25 items classified by Google as 'News'. They are sometimes in reputable publications like Times of India; they are all very dull indeed. Now if GlobalLogic got into a tussle with Microsoft or the European Union, say, that would be a notable matter. But "opens an office in Santiago, Chile" - the fact is not noteworthy outside the company and its investors. So the History and Acquisitions section is not notable, I suggest. That leaves the four lines of introduction at the top and the box with 5,000+ employees. Is that worth keeping, a large IT outsourcing company? Not really, probably. But maybe it could get a mention in a list somewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per two reliable sources: Reuters article, eWeek article. Both are in-depth articles about GlobalLogic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:SPAM is being referred to? Is it WP:ARTSPAM? If so, how is the article considered in your opinion to be an advertisement? Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep informative, well referenced, It's not advertizment, its simply leting people know about it, I see no reason to not have it on wikipedia – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did anyone trying to delete this bother to spend a brief moment clicking the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD? The actions of this company are reported in many sources. [45] [46] some report its "one of the largest outsourced product development companies in India" and that its a "$100-million company". Dream Focus 20:24, 11 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 redirect to Glen Cove, New York. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph V. Suozzi[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. ~T P W 14:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glen Cove, New York--looks like he does fail WP:POLITICIAN. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for politicians. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:16, 9 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 merge to California State University, Sacramento. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Hornet Fight[edit]

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

Contested PROD, Non notable UNI song. Mt king ^(edits) 11:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the university article No indication of wp:notability, and little content. Would make a good 2 sentences in the university article. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again as I stated in the discussion page of the main article, if you do this for one school's fight song, you need to do it for them all. Just because a school is not on the same stage as a Penn State, Michigan, UCLA, etc., doesn't mean its fight song is any less non-notable. That and the lyrics are in the public domain, there is no copyright infringement. Biking4Life (talk) 19:00, 30 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge as for the other schools in the conference, which are the true articles to compare against. In the structure of American College football, some teams are better known than others and will have greater public attention to them and the fight songs, bands, and the like--which is reflected in their notability. We are here to recognize that, not compensate for it DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to California State University, Sacramento - no references to indicate any notability = nothing to merge. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:33, 12 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. Favonian (talk) 09:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Ferrel[edit]

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

Speedy declined and removal of speedy deletion template many times by now blocked user. A person competing in America's Next Top Model and has does not meet notability requirements. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. - DonCalo (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG - She gets significant coverage in reliable sources already in article. Rednevog (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Rednevog's point. -- Evans1982 (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree with the deletion argument and fails WP:GNG. Therefore, my choice is delete. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:06, 6 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minimnl coverage. I accept the winners of these competitions as notable. I don't accept it without much better material for those who do not actually come in first. The article as written sounds promotion, with various unsourced statements of praise for her qualities. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are three sources (looking like four, but source 2 and 3 are actually the same one) in the article. Only the first of these qualify as significant coverage - it is quite a long interview with Ferrel. The second source is brief and it's quesitonable whether the source is in fact a WP:RS. The final source looks like a RS, but it only mentions Ferrel in passing. So WP:GNG does not appear to be met. In addition, the article contains a lot of unsourced fluff and promotional writing; when that's taken out, there is no actual claim of notability for the person. --bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As directly above, appears to fail WP:1E. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is a perenial problem with many ANTM contestants' pages, often created by fans of the particular contestant. With a show that barely averages 2 million viewers per season (as compared to other reality shows like Survivor or American Idol which would warrant their contestants more major coverage due to greater audience and radio impressions), there is simply not enough justification for a non-winning contestant to have a Wikipedia page of their own unless they have done some noteworthy acheivements outside of ANTM, like acting and sports (Analeigh Tipton, Yaya DaCosta), hosting (Kim Stolz, Toccara Jones), pageants (Cassandra Whitehead), television milestones (Heather Kuzmich, Isis King), winning in other reality shows like Modelville (Dominique Reighard) or truly successful international models (Elyse Sewell, Eugena Washington).
- Adding on to my point, I do suggest a clean-up and/or deletion of several other ANTM contestants' pages, including Esther Petrack, Anchal Joseph, Jane Randall, Chantal Jones, Natasha Galkina, Kahlen Rondot, Samantha Potter, Raina Hein, Celia Ammerman, Chelsey Hersley and even our beloved Laura Kirkpatrick. ZephyrWind (talk) 09:43, 12 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 both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bufus Dei[edit]

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

Two albums by the same band, Bufus Dei and Ablun Malüss 108. Contested prods. I couldn't find reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to these albums, so they fail our notability guideline. 48 Distinct Google hits[47] for Ablun Malüss 108, 29 for Bufus Dei. No Google News archive or Google books hits for either. The articles are only sourced to myspace and facebook, so no help there either. Fram (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:41, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery reparations scam[edit]

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

Non-notable variation on lottery scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twin Bird (talk • contribs) 28 September 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Deserves a subsection in another article perhaps. Only if you can find sources for it. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:41, 3 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Google reveals plenty of sources about this, e.g.[48][49] The article already cites (under External links) IRS bulletins, and a Snopes page that contains a long list of sources. Here's some examples of the news coverage, which suggests that the scam has been around for quite a few years in various forms:[50][51][52][53][54] Here's some examples of editorial commentary about the scam[55][56] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well known and sourceable urban legend and scam. All the major urban-legend websites and books reference it. Useful for our core readership (secondary school and college students) and others besides. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 5 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. Contesting elections does not establish notability. Winning might, no prejudice against recreation if he managed to win a seat at some point. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katari Srinivasa Rao[edit]

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

WP:BLP with no reliable sources for content except to say he was contesting the election or he's a spokesperson. Search revealed nothing either, the two books on gbooks are en.wiki mirrors, couldn't find anything of value on The Hindu (one saying contested election another that he's a spokesperson) or Times of India either. Generic news search shows nothing. There are quite a bit of blogs and youtube hits. On the whole doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:PROF. Delete. —SpacemanSpiff 06:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in The Hindu quoting Katari Srinivasa Rao: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=katari+srinivasa+rao+site:www.hindu.com&pbx=1&oq=katari+srinivasa+rao+site:www.hindu.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=588l4878l1l5133l19l18l0l0l0l0l190l2015l9.9l18l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=8b063d7b6db75dde&biw=1639&bih=771

Also, he is the General Secretary of the Lok Satta Party. So, consider this before a decision is made whether to delete the article or not.Townblight (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That search is inflated as it includes all Srinivasa Raos, but the point is that every one of the relevant results are for him as spokesperson and mentions in the local editions of The Hindu. And also, it's not a nationally or statewide recognised party -- Election Commission recognition. It's a registered unrecognised party. —SpacemanSpiff 07:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India. —SpacemanSpiff 06:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This search has only one "Katari Srinivasa Rao" as quoted in The Hindu articles: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22katari+srinivasa+rao%22+site:www.hindu.com&pbx=1&oq=%22katari+srinivasa+rao%22+site:www.hindu.com&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=17790l19182l0l19960l2l2l0l0l0l0l176l248l1.1l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=8b063d7b6db75dde&biw=1639&bih=771

Now are you satisfied that there is only one "Katari Srinivasa Rao" quoted in all these news articles?

Also, when have we started differentiating news in Wikipedia based on whether the news is published in Delhi/Mumbai editions versus Hyderabad/Chennai/other cities' editions?

Also, if you think Lok Satta Party as an unrecognized political party (a technical aspect based on rules of Election Commission of India) does not qualify for notability, why don't you also propose deletion of the page for Lok Satta Party? Does your logic hold good there too?

Townblight (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have I said that the party is not notable? Please do not put words in my mouth. I've said that he's the general secretary of a local, non-recognized party and the quotes "from" him have been in the context of local election coverage. There's nothing at all beyond that -- no coverage of him. However, on your other point, there are other pages within this walled garden that have to be deleted too, it's just that no one has got to them yet. —SpacemanSpiff 11:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not local party. It has branches and contested in four states. If you get 6% votes, then election commission calls it as recognized party or party that will given permanent election symbol. mlpkr (talk)

Delete per nom. Most of the results of a google search shows up the party's website. The two The Hindu news articles cited in the article hardly talk anything about this person. Clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. — Abhishek ^Talk 13:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know he is notable person in Andhra Pradesh, India. He contested in elections several times and appear in several local language news papers. Hindu is national news paper and you are arguing about only two articles that did not give details. Let us ask you the question other way, what kind of evidence makes the article to keep in wikipedia and qualifies to keep in wikipedia. Who is able to judge that whether the people from his country or some others? You can see several english papers mentioning his name as well [[57]]

mlpkr (talk) 04:07, 4 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:42, 9 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. causa sui (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kunlé Adeyemi[edit]

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

this article fails to establish notability - the references in the article are either self-published or questionable - article fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG and WP:RS - article is written in a promotional tone. Amsaim (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear reviewer(s). I have tried to add information about this person with secondary references as much as possible, but indeed had to complete his profile with information from the NLE website. Is that not allowed? Is it an idea that I remove the text that is based on the website of NLE? There is no promotional intention behind this text. Please specify what sentences you perceived as promotional, I will delete them. Kind regards Marjoleine

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and high degree of WP:PROMOTION. - DonCalo (talk) 19:33, 28 September 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} 00:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm more-or-less satisfied by the notability of this person given the sources recently added.--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 23:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on sources, satisfies WP:GNG. --Lambiam 21:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant résumé. Don't let the long list of references fool you: most of them are not independent third-party sources or proof notability! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:56, 12 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Moreau (actor)[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which verify the existence of or évidence the notability of this French actor. Many initially apparent hits refer to the historic Jacob-Nicolas Moreau, not this actor. Additional sources welcomed, as always. Moved to keep below. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's this guy: ~~Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 5 at IMDb (Hmmm... IMDb template doing something I wasn't expecting)~~IMDb entry --Northernhenge (talk) 19:29, 4 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's probably OK on WP:ENT (1) and (3), especially as he's clearly currently active. I don't know about (2) 'Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following' but that could hopefully be addressed over time by tagging the article for notability.--Northernhenge (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have been in (in a sufficent role) enough notable films, TV and theatrical performances to warrant a little article. I have tried to add some refs but there is not much in them - but perhaps enough to allow a keep. (Msrasnw (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT, as far as I can tell. In truth, web search indicates that France has any number of Nicolas Moreau's--other Nicolas Moreau's. Subject does have a lengthy list of of credits, but they are virtually all bit parts in non-notable projects, with just a few supporting roles--in non-notable projects. Handful of stage roles. If substantial WP:RS sources can be uncovered, I could be convinced otherwise, however, his French WP entry has also been flagged for lack of sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh.... the "trick" to separate them out is to be more specific in searches by combining his name with the names of his known works. For instance, "Nicolas Moreau"+"Lady Chatterley" brings us hints for deeper searches,[58] as does "Nicolas Moreau"+"Le refuge".[59][60] But digging does take time. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment My digging has only just begun... We have a French "acteur" and sound editor who as an actor has appeared in multiple film and television productions and as sound editor has worked many more... all of which seem to be productions notable in France, despite the poor shape of his article on a non-English Wikipedia. I'll see what I can do to see if he meets WP:ENT. His 2007 César Awards (THE national film award of France) nomination for sound editor on the 2006 French film Lady Chatterly, might be seen to meet WP:ANYBIO. I've never before heard of this fellow, but WP:UNKNOWNHERE does not mean he's unknown there, and notable to France is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. I'll be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your searching here, I'd likely back to at least neutral on this if we could reliably verify the nomination, and I hope we can. I made an attempt at the Cesar web page, there was extensive coverage of the 32nd Cesar awards in reliable news sources but none I found mentioned Nicolas. It's probably even accurate (the nomination, if our page on it, was shared, which probably explains part of the reason Moreau flew below the news radar there), but I'm not entirely comfortable with "probably." I don't need fifteen pages of search results, I've tried to dig through those myself. What I need is a single reliable source for it. That I've never heard of the fellow played no part in my nomination, the three or four thousand unsourced BLPs I've added sources to have almost uniformly been people I've never heard of, and a surprising number of them were in cultures with far less on-line news coverage than France. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a news source, but IMDb (again) lists his award nomination at http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000157/2007 --Northernhenge (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a news source (Agence France Presse) but it's in French.

Agence France Presse
26 janvier 2007 vendredi 11:21 AM GMT
César 2007: "Indigènes", "Lady Chatterley" et "Ne le dis à personne" favoris
LONGUEUR: 373 mots
ORIGINE-DEPECHE: PARIS 26 jan 2007
...
"Lady Chatterley" est en compétition pour les César suivants: meilleure actrice
et espoir féminin, Marina Hands, réalisateur, Pascale Ferran, son (Jean-Jacques
Ferran, Nicolas Moreau, Jean-Pierre Laforce), photo (Julien Hirsch), décors
(François-Renaud Labarthe), costumes (Marie-Claude Altot) et adaptation (Pascale
Ferran, Roger Bohbot, Pierre Trividic).
...

--Northernhenge (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with sources in French. They're not preferred, but they're equally valid in terms of WP:V. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as original nominator based on Agence France Presse source verifying co-nomination for César award (but add to the article where you found that source, since you didn't say, please. Thanks! ) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:08, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Call[edit]

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

The article is too small to recognize Call as a signifcant illustrator to the series Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 02:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been inclouded in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too small? It's a day-old stub. That's not exactly a reason for deletion. Several Times (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google shows that he has illustrated many, many books. Though I'm not sure if he meets our notability standards, I am sure that an article being "too small" is not a valid argument to delete. If the article is "too small", nominator, why not make it bigger and better by adding well-referenced content about this illustrator's accomplishments? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 02:13, 29 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural keep - WP:TOOLITTLE is not a valid rationaile for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's reasonable to believe that sources to establish notability can be found. This source may be a good start, but I don't have access to the actual book. I think it's a close call, though, because I can't find any indication that he's won awards or anything like that, but I'd prefer to err on the side of keeping.--~T P W 00:57, 5 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. causa sui (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Suwendy[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. a mere 4 gnews hits [61], and 2 of them passing mentions. note gnews includes major Malaysian newspapers. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and probably WP:PROMOTION. - DonCalo (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. No significant information except a lot of personal blogs and profile registrations all over the net. No valid source when she started her active years, list of all events associated with her or current projects she attends. Perfectford (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG - She gets significant coverage in reliable sources[62] [63][64] Rednevog (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only 1 of this is indepth coverage. it merely confirms her participation. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 5 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rednevog. WPSamson (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only 1 source of what Rednevog provided is indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to have two reliable sources. She appears to have hosted a popular show in the country she is from. She is a writer for a notable Malaysian newspaper. She was also mentioned here, in a Times of India article, a Malaysian Star article, another Malaysian Star article, a third Malaysian star article and a fourth Malaysian Star article. She was also mentioned in a Malaysia Current article. Not seeing any requirement in WP:NOTE that a person needs to be extensively covered as the sole focus of an article, and the totality of mentions across several sites appear to make her notable. I also suspect if I searched Malaysian language sites (I don't speak the language), I'd find more sources regarding her television and modeling work that would support notability. --LauraHale (talk) 11:09, 6 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kshitij[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreliable refs, article best deleted I opine. Or probably merge to main article? Lynch 7 18:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur#Festivals. What could really be merged is already included (that it's a student festival). —SpacemanSpiff 19:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not redirect or merge: whatever the notability of this festival, Kshitij is a not-uncommon first name, so the primary topic for this article should not be the festival. If it is kept, it should be renamed to Kshitij (festival), while Kshitij should be a disambiguation page. (No vote on notability: I think it's a borderline case that could go either way.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, move this to Kshitij (festival) and redirect, so that the history can be used for any content add. And convert Kshitij to a name article listing. —SpacemanSpiff 08:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:13, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 5 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Lafferty[edit]

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

No sources on this article. Plus, an uncredited appearance in one episode of a TV show, one supporting role in a film and a lead in an unknown film isn't notable. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 17:43 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:50 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:13, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 5 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irdeto[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced unambiguous advertisement. From start to finish, this article is written in promotional POV-pushing prose that's usually also deliberately vague and can't be fixed by editing:

a private, limited liability global software security and media technology company
The company develops end-to-end software security, content management and customer care and billing solutions for the delivery, protection and monetization of digital content in digital TV, IPTV and mobile environments.
Irdeto regularly builds additional security mechanisms into its technology to prevent piracy. Irdeto works with federal authorities, local police and customers to break pirate business models and combat piracy in the pay television market.
In February 2011, the company launched ActiveCloak for Media, the first dynamic security solution to protect and monetize high-value digital entertainment assets throughout their entire lifecycle and across a range of consumer devices.
Irdeto regularly builds additional security mechanisms into its technology to prevent piracy. Irdeto works with federal authorities, local police and customers to break pirate business models and combat piracy in the pay television market.

The article is essentially unreferenced; there are a number of external links to press releases. The presence of an elaborate but unreferenced history of the business suggests conflict of interest. This business is apparently a wholly owned subsidiary of Naspers and may warrant a line or two in that article. Contested speedy and proposed deletion, not mine. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SPAM - DonCalo (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Entirely unreferenced History sections are often copyvios of the company website, just like in this case. I removed most of the section because it was taken from [65]. --Pgallert (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just cut out all the references for their website. Someone else can perhaps expand it a bit more utilizing secondary sources. SarahStierch (talk) 23:01, 30 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please source technical explanation of Irdeto CAM card. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.175.229.9 (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SPAM and WP:CORP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:04, 12 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Deeley[edit]

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

This is an actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources. He has also modeled but that hasn't attracted coverage either. He has been signed to play a recurring role in the fourth season of 90210, but that does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Coverage consists of casting announcements which aren't significant. Whpq (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:PROMOTION. - DonCalo (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete does not meet WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's had parts in several notable TV shows and films, and has appeared in other media as a model. He seems to meet WP:NMODEL. Rednevog (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The shows may be notable, but his roles in the shows are not significant. Nor is there any coverage about his modelling career that I could find. Can you explain which criteria of notability guidelines is satisfied? -- Whpq (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs significant roles in multiple notable shows to meet WP:ENT/WP:NMODEL. Novaseminary (talk) 00:56, 4 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} 00:16, 5 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. Looks like those supporters never showed up... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Contortionist[edit]

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

The article provides no reliable source being a Band article. Karthik Nadar (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the band may be a remarkable one in the future but for now, lacks major reputable sources. -- $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 14:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Save – This band is remarkable now and while this entry is currently lacking reputable sources, there are many available. Supporters are gathering information with citations to fix this entry and save it. -- $Brian$ —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 3 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:04, 9 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. causa sui (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sher-e-Poonch[edit]

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

Kashmiri political leader but the external links scarcely mention him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book was also published which consists of his history and sacrifices done by him for his nation INDIA. He was anly hope in Poonch ater 1947. He is a great personality, done a number of good deeds with good people. He wanted to help others without any profits and also refused POK, where he was given a chance to become president of POK when he was in POK jail after 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafiq bandey (talk • contribs) 18:46, 21 September 2011

Comment Seems to be better known as Khwaja Ghulam Qadir Bandey? Edgepedia (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:11, 28 September 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} 00:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Sounds like he should be notable, but the article suffers badly from WP:POV to the point where it might be best to WP:BLOWITUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLOWITUP as suggested above. The article text is copied in entirety from a Facebook page linked to on the article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:43, 13 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Saunders[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Could find nothing on Ghits to support notability; completely orphaned article with reference which needs improving. Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for 4 years - could find nothing to suggest Saunders is not your average journalist. Boleyn (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This afd was not listed until 21 September 2011. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. - DonCalo (talk) 19:42, 28 September 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} 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE non-notable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:18, 11 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 redirect to Strata title. causa sui (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strata condo[edit]

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

Advert for a non-notable apartment building in Singapore. Search for sources yields only real estate listings. Prod contested by author. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article created solely for advertising. Non-notable building, unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this building is historically significant in a way that would make it notable. VQuakr (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No obvious reasons for this to be notable, no cites given, Googling finds no news stories about this particular building. Therefore this article should be deleted. However, there is a common use of this term to describe a type of property ownership, to which this would be an appropriate redirect. Therefore, after deletion of this article, this page should be subsequently redirected to Strata title. -- The Anome (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to redirecting after deletion per The Anome's comment above. Based on the repeated removal of the AfD notice on the article page, it may be a good idea for the redirect to be protected. VQuakr (talk) 06:55, 12 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M-1 (rapper)[edit]

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

This person is not a notable figure, and virtually unheard of as a musical act. Cheekytrees (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M-1 is part of a duo that has sold over 300,000 records and meets at least 8 of the 12 notability guidelines for musical groups (1,2,4,5,6,7,10,12). Individually, he has a number of documentary film and acting credits and has received coverage (as an individual as well as part of Dead Prez) for both his political activism and musical career. Saying he's "virtually unheard of" as a musical act makes no sense at all. Isonomist (talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, M-1 is well known as both a rapper and an activist, and as above, meets most of the notability guidelines. SalfEnergy 22:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, M-1 has his individual artistic line of work (album, also featured in other artist releases, etc) in addition to being a well-known even outspoken spokesman and activist for left-wing causes. He is also in films, for example as an actor in Broken Rhyme directed by Detdrich McClure (2006) and is appearing in a documentary Long Distance Revolutionary: A Journey with Mumia Abu-Jamal directed by Stephen Vittoria due for release in 2012. Following request for deletion, I have developed the article considerably to address genuine concerns by colleague who has requested deletion. werldwayd (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:09, 28 September 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} 00:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above - looks like he's notable. Some more references would be nice, and the imdb link isn't a valid reference, but there's enough here to satisfy policy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 5 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 restore redirect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Johnston (musician)[edit]

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

This individual is not notable in his own right as a musician. The article was redirected to the band Monk & Canatella but that redirection was undone twice by different editors (who may be connected) therefore I am listing this article here for a discussion about notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 September 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} 00:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re-redirect and move-protect per past practice. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 11 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.