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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oysters Rockefeller (film)[edit]

Oysters Rockefeller (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability uncertain; film has not yet been released. Google search for ("Oysters Rockefeller" + "Charles Rogers") does not indicate significant coverage. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom + WP:COI, as the film writer and article writer appear to be the same. This leads me to believe the article is being used as a promotional piece.  -- WikHead (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice for now per WP:NotJustYet. While the author's COI is always a concern (indicating that returning it to him is not the best option), the article itself is written in an encyclopedic manner with very neutral POV and does not seem to be promoting the film any more than other Wikipedia film articles "promote" other films. That said, this one is premature, does not merit being an exception to WP:NFF, and needs to be released and get coverage before an article is to be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice, as it currently fails WP:NF. The article will be a good candidate for deletion review if the film is released and receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Schmidt. Moogwrench (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - TP 03:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zigetvar Eyalet[edit]

Zigetvar Eyalet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unlike Karesi, this Ottoman province is mentioned in several sources so it's pretty certain that it did exist, but it was for just 4 years, in the late 16th century. It was one of about a dozen provinces created in the 16th century that existed for a matter of months, but it's the only one to have its own article. It's unlikely that we'll ever have enough material about it to keep it as an independent page, so I suggest redirecting it to Szigetvár#History. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This (Sigetvar Eyaleti ) was a short-lived eyalet.

Sadık Müfit Bilge, "Macaristan'da Osmanlı Hakimiyetinin ve İdari Teşkilatının Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesi", Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi dergisi, Sayı 11, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 2000, p. 68, 75 Takabeg (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep — inhabited places, even if defunct, are generally considered notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's notable doesn't mean that it should have a separate page, especially since there's so little to write about it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - if it existed it should have its article on Wikipedia. Redirect to Szigetvár is not appropriate because Szigetvár is city, while Zigetvar Eyalet was a province that was governed from that city and that included many other settlements - these two subjects are definitely not same or even similar. We have articles about political entities that existed for much shorter time. I also disagree that "we'll never have enough material about it" - new material about various things is introduced each day and there is no evidence that additional material about this province will not be available to us. PANONIAN 07:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia, Akhaltsikhe, Dagestan, Dmanisi, Ganja, Gori, Győr, Kakheti, Lazistan, Lorri, Moldavia, Nakhichevan, Poti, Sanaa, Shemakha, Szigetvár, Shervan, Tabriz, Tiflis, Wallachia, Yerevan, Zabid. All of these eyalets exist for some months. But out of all of them, Zigetvar is the only one with a separate article about it, the rest are redirects. Panonian, how would you expand this article? Can you prove that it can ever be brought beyond stub level?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — this isn't a convincing argument for deletion. see WP:OTHERSTUFF. anyway, if what you wanted was a redirect, you could have just done that by ordinary editing without bringing it here. deletion will destroy the edit history of the page. perhaps you should consider withdrawing your nomination and making the article into a redirect, and then if editors who want to write more about it show up later, they can resurrect it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a legitimate result of an AfD, it doesn't have to be deleted - maybe Short-lived Ottoman provinces would be a good idea to have? It could pick up all of those redirects. I picked one at random and found Shemakha Province, Ottoman Empire points to Shamakhi Rayon which doesn't even mention the words "Ottoman province" or "eyalet", so it's a bit unclear as is. A summary article with a proper collection of links and context would be preferable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we should merge this article with what exactly? It is bad idea that article about province is merged with article about city and there is no corresponding modern region that have same or similar territory as this province. There is simply no proper similar article that could be effectively merged with this one. PANONIAN 20:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into the more generically named article. Later, other analogous content can be added to that which would not be subject to deletion either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My current inclination is to merge to Kanije Eyalet - but I will admit that this is based on somewhat informed guesswork. The entire four-year period is in the middle of the Long War. and it looks as if the Ottomans were adapting administrative structures along their north-western borders to cope with it. From what is said here and in related articles, it looks as if the Zigetvar eyalet was formed when parts of south-western Hungary and Croatia (formerly in the Budin Eyalet and Bosnia Eyalet) were put under the command of Tiryaki Hasan Pasha, who was apparent based in Zigetvar in the late 1590s. Kanije was apparently captured by the Ottomans in 1600, and Tiryaki Hasan Pasha then made that his base. At which point, presumably, the administrative centre and the name of the eyalet were changed - but we are looking at two successive stages of the same administrative division. Can anyone come up with evidence from reliable sources for (or against) this? PWilkinson (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that might be good proposal. According to older version of map from Euratlas site that show situation in 1600, Zigetvar eyalet had more-less same borders as Kanije eyalet (which is shown in newer version of same map - I have both map versions in my computer). This indeed might be same eyalet that changed name. PANONIAN 04:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Panonian's rationale. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect - to a line in Szigetvár#History - Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Panonian. This is not destined to be a long article, but not every article needs to be long. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:32, 23 September 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 Ontario_general_election,_2011_(candidates). v/r - TP 03:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Denley[edit]

Randall Denley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for authors or politicians, or the general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. There is some coverage in local media even after discounting the coverage by his former employer, but nothing above what would be expected for a candidate. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious how you went about determining that coverage in local media is the same, more or less, for other candidates? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All coverage that I could find in independent sources was basic news reporting on his candidacy. Per WP:POLITICIAN, merely being a candidate does not imply that the person is notable enough to merit an article. I did not compare the subjects coverage to other people in the election; we use external scales to judge notability rather than comparing an article to other articles. VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia's not for electioneering, and he hasn't done enough to be especially notable otherwise. PKT(alk) 11:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not for electioneering? Why not? I personally believe elections are an important part of democracy which cannot exist without free access to information – and what better way to get unbiased information than at Wikipedia? As it stands the Ontario elections are getting very poor coverage at Wikipedia - too few Wikipedians are actively involved in editing pages and way too few readers from Ontario are paying attention when the elections are only two weeks away. This could have been a golden opportunity to change the mindset of some Canadians about Wikipedia, if only... Ottawahitech (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because the topic is in the news or because someone thinks the article's existence furthers a worthy goal. I agree that Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias. Compromising our notability standards is not the way to correct this. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, your talk page shows that you've been concerned about how comprehensively Ottawa elections are covered for at least four years. Some things haven't changed in that time - Wikipedia is still not a news site and still requires other sources to cover a person or event first. Wikinews may be a better place for you to improve the coverage of these elections, which understandably don't get a whole lot of reliable coverage outside of the province itself.--~TPW 01:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am astounded that no one from Ottawa has come to Mr. Denley's defence. Not notable? Just about any Ottawan would disagree. Randall Denley was well-known as an Ottawa Citizen columnist way before he decided to run for office. Why there is not an existing article about him here is anyone’s guess. As Wikipedians I believe we all have a common goal of promoting Wikipedia, but how will we do it if we are turning off a very large audience by declaring that their people are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Being well known in Ottawa might make him notable, but it doesn't have to. Do any of the criteria at WP:BIO#Creative professionals apply, for example? Lagrange613 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Mr. Denley has worked as a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen for almost 20 years. I don't believe he would have lasted this long in this major newpaper if people did not think that he was an excellent journalist. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can be good at something and still not notable, even if many people agree. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN. My guess is that there is not an article on the gentlemen because he does not meet the general notability guideline, which should be applied evenly in all cases. However, the politician guideline is clear that deletion is not the preferred option in such a case; the relevant information about Mr. Denley can be included in an article about the campaign itself.--~TPW 02:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sayng that there are no articles aboutRandall Denley? - If so, you must have overlooked the five references llisted in the article, and if this is not enough just google. You will find dozens! Ottawahitech (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that any subject that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines has a page on Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still confused about why everyone here seems to think that Randall Denley is not a notable person. If you take the time to click on the links, conveniently located on the top of this page, you will see the following:

google web About 33,900 results

google news About 133 results

google books About 14 results

google scholar Results 1 - 10 of about 15

So my question is: how many links does it take to make a person notable enough for Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that Google hits do not confer notability. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tens of thousands of google hits are not significant when considering notability at Wikipedia? So what does? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the general notability guideline and then the notability guideline dealing specifically with people, which reads, in part, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics". Lagrange613 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Wikipedia:BIO#Invalid_criteria then I do not see the relevance to Randall Denley. He is not famous/infamous because he is related to someone else, nor is he part of the adult film industry. Also is this of interest Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents/Archive#Does_955_Google_hits_and_some_media_attention_merit_inclusion.3F_-_Yes

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the entire guideline; I quoted the second bulleted paragraph under "Invalid criteria", not the first. The "Common outcomes" page is inactive and retained only for historical reference. Consensus on notability has shifted in the eight years since the discussion you're referring to, as evidenced by the links I've provided specifically refuting the argument that Google hits impute notability. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since there doesn't appear to be a PC candidate page for this election. This candidate does not warrant an article based on this reason alone. Other attributes are non-notable. Suttungr (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the PC party is not notable? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page for all candidates in the election here. I'm not sure how that relates, though, since notability is not inherited.--~TPW 22:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ontario_general_election,_2011_(candidates). We can always flesh out the page to an article should it be warranted. Moogwrench (talk) 23:14, 24 September 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} 23:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lainton[edit]

Rob Lainton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable footballer. Hasn't played in professional league or cup competition. Fails WP:FOOTY Quentin X (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage, and he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has yet to make first team debut. Muur (talk) 22:38, 21 September 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} 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sanchez-Munoz[edit]

Jonathan Sanchez-Munoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence that this footballer has played for Malaga CF as per LFP, FootballDatabse.eu and Soccerway, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also a lack of any significant media coverage means he fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Abbatemarco[edit]

Frank Abbatemarco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Frank Abbatemarco does not pass WP:CRIME, he is only known for being murdered. There is information on Abbatemarco and him being murder its found in the Colombo crime family#Gallo-Profaci War (1960-1964) section and the Colombo crime family#Former members section. Vic49 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Abbatemarco was a marginal player in the Colombo drama. I agree with deleting the article Rogermx (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:CRIME. Relevant information already in Colombo crime family#Gallo-Profaci War (1960-1964). - DonCalo (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass WP:CRIME. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sof Strait[edit]

Sof Strait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable woman who got in the Guiness Book of Records by performing a trick. Only local coverage, very few Google hits that are not from You Tube, Facebook, Flickr of her own website. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Even the author of the article can find very little to say about her apart from trivia: "waiting for her certificate", etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:52, 23 September 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. per WP:SNOW Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Cornella[edit]

Legend of the Cornella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Alleged trilogy of books by 15 year old. No ghits outside Wikipedia and Facebook (not even Amazon). Prod removed by author of article. Other involved articles are Bethany Ward and Elyra, Land of Nymphs. Might be a good series, but as yet apparently unpublished. Peridon (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing online to indicate it even exists yet, let alone any show of notability.--Dmol (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:56, 17 September 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 Beefeater (band). There is unanimity that the subject is not sufficiently notable for his own page and without any sources in the page there is nothing that can be merged. It is, however, a potentially useful redirect. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred "Freak" Smith[edit]

Fred "Freak" Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of notability for a musician. Speedy was declined based on him appearing once on Jay Leno as a comedy act, but little online about that either. Conflict of interest from creator. Article created by one of his band colleagues, who also created an article about himself and other members.(Since deleted}. Dmol (talk) 21:52, 17 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) 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Beefeater (band). -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggest, or delete -- he badly fails WP:CREATIVE. Lots of people get their one shot to appear on Jay Leno. You need multiple appearances per CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 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 Lina_Murr_Nehme. v/r - TP 03:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baalbek, Monument Phenicien[edit]

Baalbek, Monument Phenicien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Previous PROD was removed. No notability established or claimed. Deadly∀ssassin 21:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• merge into an article on the author. As I said on my talk p. (I was asked about this a few hours ago, since she is writing articles for many of her books): As a practical matter, she is perhaps notable as an author, since two of her books are in many but not all of the major French university libraries, so an article on her and a merge seems reasonable. There's even an English language source about her, [1]. Worldcat & the French university Union Catalog, sudoc, [2] give only 5 holdings-- the superlative German-based international union catalog, Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog KVK , [3] adds only one or two. I think however a thorough search would probably find reviews of the book--I think a thorough search would find reviews of essentially all academic books from major publishers, and if we took BOOKS literally every notable author would have some or all of their books separately notable, as would many non-notable authors. (To summarize my view of that guideline: books, as well as sports and popular entertainment, are among the things over-covered by the press, especially the coverage of academic books by academic journals, and so the GNG for these subjects is way too broad. To the extent Wikipedia:Notability (books) incorporates it as criterion 1, it is way too broad.) I am therefore not going to do such a search for this article, as I do not think the book or her other books appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I can't search for every Wikipedia article , so I work if I can on those things most likely to be notable in some real sense. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is part of a series of articles being introduced by the same editor all promoting what appear to be non-notable books per WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - TP 03:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Rooney's portrayal of I.Y. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's[edit]

Mickey Rooney's portrayal of I.Y. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Does not conform to the WP:Notability standards set by Wikipedia. I do not think that someone's portrayal of a minor character that lasts about a minute in the whole movie is appropriate for a full Wikipedia page. Anonywiki (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep — this is off-the-charts notable. look at this search if the panoply of references already in the article aren't already enough for you. i don't know how many minutes he was on screen, but it's not relevant. his role qua his role is widely discussed as a thing in itself, and is therefore notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well referenced, and too long to merge into Portrayal of East Asians in Hollywood. Pburka (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Notability standards being met in droves. It does not matter one whit that the character had little screen time. What matters is the continued discussion and commentary in multiple reliable sources over a many years period. Per the sources available, the article merits further expansion, but definitely not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Breakfast at Tiffany's (film). As notorious as Rooney's portrayal of a Japanese man in the film has become, I'm not sure why the response to it doesn't belong in the article about the film; neither article is so long that a merger would be unreasonable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Breakfast at Tiffany's (film). The article is less about Rooney's portrayal than modern reaction to it. While the reaction is notable I strong think that this would be more effective in the film's article where it can be judged in context. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with a merge to the film article is that Rooney's characterization is a trivial one-minute scene when compared to the film's overall story and comentary in sources. The portrayal being seen in a negative light by multiple sources is years after the fact and deals with the director's choice of Rooney as an Asian. In the film article it would be a trivial sidenote, but as a seperate article, the topic is worthy of expansion through the multiple available sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments above, but rename to I.Y. Yunioshi. I saw the film for the first time a few years ago, and was shocked by this scene. Sources provided prove that it's notable, but the title is excessively long and clunky. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the title is clunky. Your suggestion is a term as used in the sources, and is thus a resonable search term. Nice choice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I.Y. Yunioshi also appeared in the Truman Capote novella the film is based on. The character in the novel is not, as far as I know, controversial in any way. I would be reluctant to conflate the character with the controversy. The existing title, while verbose, is consistent with Portrayal of East Asians in Hollywood. Pburka (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — i'm with Pburka on this one. it isn't the character that's notable, but rooney's portrayal of the character in the film. thus, as lousy as it sounds, i think that the current name for the article is the correct one. right now, a search on "I. Y. Yunioshi" leads to exactly what it ought to lead to, which is this article, the film, the portrayal of east asians, and lastly the story by capote. perhaps a dab page is in order, but i don't think that the issue is pressing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a less clunky Mickey Rooney as I.Y. Yunioshi? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just do I.Y. Yunioshi. The article can be about the film character with a note in the footer about the novella having a character with the same name but in a completely different role (as a Japanese photographer). I think I saw in one of the sources that the film's Yunioshi was based on a non-Asian character from the novella but was changed. In short, all the coverage talks about the film's Yunioshi and not the novella's, so we don't have to disambiguate with "Mickey Rooney as" or with "(film character)". Erik (talk | contribs) 16:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG on all points. I believe the current title is appropriate. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet WP:GNG? At least one of the "citations" listed there is a link to a review of the film that happens to mention "racist" and mentions nothing about any protests. This is all it says: "For an overtly racist Orientalist representation in American film, see Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)." Another so-called citation was an article that had this in it: "Mickey Rooney's Mr. Yunioshi, Holly's landlord, was a cringe-inducing stereotype.", and those are just the first two I went to. Ironically when I saw the term "angry asian" I thought it was referring to the protestors. Protests occur all over the world for many different reasons, they don't all demand a Wikipedia page of their own. Typically only protests involving tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people get Wikipedia pages. And how many people have gone on hunger strike protests in the world? It strikes me as being very Western-centric and propagated by a few people, which is what we don't want on Wikipedia.

So I don't understand how it fulfills the WP:GNG criteria, in particular the links to movie reviews and articles that mention the alleged racism are ridiculous links. There are people protesting all the time, people setting up groups on Facebook, people who climb trees to save the planet, they do not all deserve an individual Wikipedia entry. Maybe it could be listed in a page entitled something like "protests about American films" in addition to being merged with the main article.

And if the page is about the protests, shouldn't it be entitled something more like: "Protests over Mickey's Rooney's portrayal of I.Y. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's"? We're not discussing all aspects of his performance, just the controversy over it. I also think the page is quite offensive to a lot of people, Mickey Rooney himself has been deeply hurt by the allegations. Anonywiki (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAnonywiki, you say " people who climb trees to save the planet, they do not all deserve an individual Wikipedia entry" yet we've had an article on Julia Butterfly Hill for nearly seven years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — (also to Anonywiki) whether or not it satisfies gng is related to the sources available, not to the sources in the article. admittedly a number of those are problematic and should be removed, but a simple google books search shows that there are many reliable sources which discuss rooney's portrayal at great length. these, along with the multiple reliable sources in the article, are what shows that this satisfies gng. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:NRVE states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." WP:Notability makes no demand that the available sources be immediately IN an article, only that the BE avaiulable. As multiple sources have been offered, we have a meeting of the GNG, whether or not the improvable article has made use of them or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment towards User:Anonywiki: If there is a reliable source that indicates Mickey Rooney's response to his portrayal of this character, it would be an excellent addition to this article. Can you provide the source? This article could grow into a very interesting page showing how the portrayal of racial stereotypes have evolved over the years since this film was produced. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Breakfast at Tiffany's (film). Does not warrant it's own page. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and truncate name to "I.Y. Yunioshi". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. More sources for info to develop this article: ^[1] and ^[2]. Also, ^[3] seems to indicate that there is a featurette on the Breakfast at Tiffany's DVD that discusses this issue. Steamroller Assault (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there appears to be significant coverage about the portrayal. However, I would also be okay with making the content part of Breakfast at Tiffany's (film) if it was ever developed into a stronger article. The examples in this sub-article feel somewhat localized where I think that the portrayal itself could be explored more closely. After all, the portrayal is still tied to the film, released in a particular time of cinema. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I also agree with Richard about truncating the name to I.Y. Yunioshi per WP:PRECISION. Judging from the coverage on the film article, director Blake Edwards supported having the character, so the truncation would be a way to cover the character in more than just how the actor (Rooney) played him. This is a good source to use to that end. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Pburka and truncate per Richard Arthur Norton. Mlpearc powwow 22:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is met. Here is significant coverage from independent secondary source Breakfast at Tiffany’s at 50: We Need to Talk About Mr. Yunioshi, Movieline.com--Larp30 (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References to consider[edit]

• Keep – Per more sources listed above that establish notability of the topic, and reliable sources in the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and truncate title to I.Y. Yunioshi. The film character has received enough coverage to be considered notable. Unlikely confusion with the non-notable novel character can be dispelled with a sentence in the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Clarke (footballer)[edit]

Joe Clarke (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Lack of signigicant media coverage means he fails WP:GNG as well. --Jimbo^[online] 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 21:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:32, 18 September 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} 23:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gray (footballer)[edit]

Phil Gray (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 21:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 21:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not received singificant coverage, nor has he played in a fully pro league. Therefore, he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RaceRender[edit]

RaceRender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be not really notable. Declined CSD G11 by User:Ironholds. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lack of sources to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My searches turn up lots of download links but no coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BlueXephos[edit]

BlueXephos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Declined CSD A7. However there may be notability issues but I feel more opinions are needed. I have no stance on the article itself and just doing this procedurally. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: one other thing though, if it is kept, it will have to be rewritten rather hardcore. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm unable to find any reliable sources for this. Pburka (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a preliminary search shows no notability or reliable sources whatsoever. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete - I was the one who tagged it as A7. Youtube is not a claim of significance. →Στc. 20:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads like self-promotion, no evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Do not have time to source this out as much as I would like, but "Yogscast" generated 1.4 million Google hits. That alone makes me think there might be something here. Regardless, it must be rewritten and is unsuitable to remain in its current form. Trusilver 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm a fan of Yogscast, but as an article this fails WP:N. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Question. If you are familiar with this Yogcast, maybe you are the one the be in the best position to find sources for it if it is actually sourcable? So many google hits make me think there must be something out there. Trusilver 02:34, 23 September 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.  Sandstein  07:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Ferreyr[edit]

Adriana Ferreyr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This person played in a Brazilian soap opera for about 7 months. Although the program has its own article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, Ferreyr does not. Beyond that, the only thing she appears to be notable for is being Soros's girlfriend and suing him. The rest of the material in the article, to the extent it's even notable, is unsourced. All the press coverage seems to be about her and Soros. Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep being in a show for 7 months sounds to be a reason to preserve this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. WP:ENT states that the person has to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It's stated in the plural, and it's not even clear her role in the soap was "significant".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The claim above does not accurately reflect the carreer of this actress. She was a child star. She played in innumerable national television commercials and has been famous since the age of 9 years old. See video below and refefence. She played a lead character on a major prime time soap opera in Brazil that was also played in many different countries. This was one of the most popular soap operas in of all times in Brazil and she became an instant sensation in the country. Remember Brazil has mainlly soap operas as a form of entertainment and they are considered a lot more prestigious then then the ones here in America. They are also shorter in nature.

This page does not contain a third of her work since a lot of her work was done when magazines did not have a presence online yet.

By Jane77765— Jane77765 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024790/George-Soros-refuses-ex-lover-Adriana-Ferreyr-1-9m-Manhattan-apartment.html

• Comment. This user below Bbb23 has deleted all the references that I have previously included in this page.

previously. See below:

^ Marisol in 2002 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1222268// ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#her-career-started-to-take-off-when-she-was-nine-when-she-starred-in-two-mcdonalds-ads-3 ^ http://www.bellenews.com/2011/08/12/world/george-soros-sued-by-brazilian-ex-girlfriend// ^ http://www.istoe.com.br/reportagens/118907_GEORGE+SOROS+E+UM+AMOR+BRASILEIRO/ ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#she-already-has-own-business-which-she-founded-5 ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#she-also-started-her-own-charity-6 ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#shes-got-beauty-brains-and-talent-1 ^ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/george-soros-the-girlfriend-and-the-apartment/ ^ http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ex_suit_vs_billionaire_hits_home_1WkMc2LdCpnWCi5DzJ7A6J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Hap791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Sources. The sources were removed for reasons and were spelled out in edit summaries. businessinsider.com is NOT a reliable source. Most of what it reports is derivative of other unreliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source. The Brazilian source said virtually nothing. The other sources are either still in the article or something like them are still in the article - there are tons of sources about Ferreyr and Soros and the lawsuit. Indeed, that's about all there is about her period, at least in the English-speaking world. Don't know if there are any Brazilian articles about her short stint on the soap.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am leaning towards delete here - I am open to investigating new reliable externals. if anyone can find any, that support more wikipedia independent notability but imy search has not provided them - the subject is a circular redirect on the Portuguese wiki. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source when it comes to biographies but it is a VERY RELIABLE SORCE when it comes to proving work done in the entertainment industry extremely accurate and it was included to prove her work in the Soap Opera Marisol. Business insider IS A RELIABLE SOURCE if this is not the WHAT IT IS. These were written by PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS THAT HAVE TO OBIDE TO THE RULES OF THEIR PROFESSION. This is a major news source that is liable for the accuracy of what they write. SHE WAS A MAIN CHARACTER ON THE SOAP: SHE PLAYED THE ANTAGONIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Reference BellowHap791 (talk

http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#her-career-started-to-take-off-when-she-was-nine-when-she-starred-in-two-mcdonalds-ads-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Business Insider is not a reliable source. It is a gossip site headed by Henry Blodget, who was banned from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission. He has carved out a niche for himself with a website that is tabloid journalism for big business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We could live without the caps and please sign your contributions. One of the businessinsider cites was for her starting her own company. It says at the bottom of the web page that the source for that information is Linkedln. Another of the bi cites was for her playing in the McDonald's commercial, and it says the bottom of that web page that the source is IMDb. Ditto for the starting of her own charity. None of this is reliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her article...being a major soap star in Marisol is substantial enough to keep this article up... She's a childhood star and I've found her commercial on youtube... In fact, you can find a lot of her work (including interviews and talk show appearances)on youtube.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.13.78 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — 76.119.13.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Source. Wall Street Journal describes Ms. Ferreyr as 28 years old Brazilian soap opera star--Hap791 (talk)

http://dealbreaker.com/tag/adriana-ferreyr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article. If she he is notable and that she was in a latin soap opera soap her page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.109.64 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — 69.248.109.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Article. Not notable. Has acted in 1 non-English language television programme at the age of 19. Has done nothing in the 9 years since.

Marisol (the remake) does not even warrant any information on IMDB. Unlike the original of 1996 its IMDB page does not have 1- storyline section 2-did you know section 3-FAQ section 4-any user reviews.

The cast is stated alphabetically. To see Ms Ferreyr you have to actually click the "see full cast" link. Usually on IMDB if a cast member is a star they head the list. The show managed to gather 16 nominations to a Brazilian Awards Show. Of the several nominations available for the female cast members,Ms Ferreyr was not selected. The show won no awards.^[1]

The only news links associated with the show's IMDB page are those of the Soros / Ferreyr legal situation.

William de Berg (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — William de Berg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Redirect to George Soros unless outstanding sources demonstrating her notability entirely independent of her relationship with Soros are produced. Notability is not inherited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notability can be inherited. It is one of the ways of being or becoming a notable person. Look at Price Williams, Princess Diana, Wendi Deng, Monica Lewinsky, Princess Catherine when she was dating Prince William, Pippa Middleton, Prince Harry, The girlfriend of Russian billionaire Alexander Abramovic Dasha Zhukova among others. However Ms Ferreyr has been notable enough without her relationship with George and prior to the law suit. This page has been up long before the law suit and there were no problems before-- she was considered notable enough by consensus. Strange that only now with the law suit this has become an issue. I wander why....????[User:hap791|hap791]] (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Hap791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's nothing "strange" about it. Information about the lawsuit was added to the article, but improperly, which was then raised on WP:BLPN. After I had cleaned up the article (not completely, actually), I decided she was not notable and nominated it. As with many BLP articles I review as a result of BLPN discussions, I'd never heard of her (or the lawsuit) before.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The statement: "This page has been up long before the law suit and there were no problems before-- she was considered notable enough by consensus." is a little bit skewed. The article was started on 16 August 2010. Here [4] another editor noticed that this was an unreferenced biography of a living person and placed the appropriate deletion tag on the article. Here [5] the tag was removed. In reviewing the intervening edits [6] it would appear that the concerns of that tag were not addressed, as it was added back here [7]. Looking at the article on 26 August 2010 when it should have been up for deletion as an unreferenced BLP here is the comparison between the tagged version and the version on 27 August [8]. It is still an unreferenced BLP. If that is consensus to keep it, then that is pretty weak consensus. As the article stands now, the only reliable sources are about the lawsuit. There seem to be no other reliable sources to show her notability. In looking at notability guidelines for entertainers (Actors/Actresses): WP:NACTOR she does not seem to meet the criteria. Yes the soap opera she acted in was notable, but that does not make her notable, see: WP:NOTINHERITED. EricSerge (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose redirect to Soros - leaning more towards delete than keep - limited WP:RS articles about her have been found/presented - imo she has other notability albeit perhaps not enough for a en wikipedia biography but imo it would be unfair to ignore that notability and redirect her name to Soros. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per BLP/N discussion about Soros - there are way too many reliable sources to deny that she has notability. Were it only the Soros suit, then it would be mergeale, but she has sufficient other notability to meet Wikipedia standards. (note: some of the reliable sources are Brazilian). World's most notable actress? Nope. But that is not a requirement on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please point out which reliable Brazilian sources give her notability, apart from the Soros connection and apart from noting in passing that she was on a soap.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough, the ones from the past month all mention Soros. That is in the realm of the obvious. They also, however, tend to call her a "well-known actress" which, to me, shows notability as far as Brazil is concerned. And I do rely on the web translation which I do not think afects notability <g>. Collect (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure which source(s) you mean. But if you're relying on only the adjective "well-known", that's pretty thin and fails WP:GNG..--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She definitely has enough notability. Agree with user Off2riorob that it would be unfair to redirect her name to Soros. Best, Bob.--Superbob2 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)— Superbob2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Ironholds (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest TV Moments[edit]

100 Greatest TV Moments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Clear violations of copyright as detailed in WP:FU#Text_2: "A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner.". Articles are offshoots of 100 Greatest/100 Worst, which contains all information acceptable and necessary. (see also previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest TV Moments from Hell) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages as they are also violations of Channel 4's copyright for the reason given above:

100 Greatest Stand-Ups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 100 Greatest Cartoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

100 Greatest Christmas Moments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

100 Greatest Scary Moments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

100 Greatest Kids' TV Shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 50 Greatest Documentaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

50 Greatest Comedy Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Greatest Comedy Catchphrases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

100 Worst Britons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Further note This edit rationale, is not accurate. The fact that another organisation has published part of one of these lists does not justify a belief that the material itself is copyright free. The poll results remain the intellectual property of Channel 4 ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest TV Moments from Hell, I considered starting a mass AfD just like this one, only I was distracted by other business on-Wiki and it kept slipping my mind. They're interesting pages, but the nominator's concerns regarding WP:COPYVIO are still completely nevertheless seem accurate. Furthermore, none of these articles meaningfully substantiates the notability of the TV programmes in question, which is probably a strong rationale for deletion in itself. Similar 100 Greatest/100 Worst spin-out articles not listed in this AfD have been (often more than once, depending on whether or not the article was re-created) variously AfDed, PRODed or SPEEDYed over the years. In my experience, "countdown"-style pages such as the ones listed above are also popular targets for vandalism (people oh-so-subtly changing poll results to reflect their own opinions as to which is the best/worst TV show/comedy film, etc.). For multiple reasons, therefore, deletion is seems to me to be appropriate. SuperMarioMan 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge all The Channel 4 shows are based upon polls and so the rankings are not creative in the sense meant. The 100 Greatest TV Moments example just list the top ten and so this is a fair use summary of the most significant part of the results. The main issue, to my mind, is that there are numerous clip shows of this kind and so there's some scope for merging our coverage. For an example of the notability of this phenomenon see Consuming history: historians and heritage in contemporary popular culture. Warden (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to a footnote at WP:NFC: "... polls are likely to be protectable as well because the parameters of the survey are chosen by those who conduct the polls and the selection of respondents indicates 'at least some creativity.'" The same text recommends that polls be accompanied by critical commentary so as to meet the criteria for fair use. Keeping these separate articles doesn't seem to be an option - the majority are full or partial reproductions of polls without commentary, which seems to violate the fair-use principle. Perhaps fleshing out the main 100 Greatest/100 Worst article with a handful of results for each programme (Top 10? Top 5? Top 3?) and critical analysis from book sources - therefore a partial merging - would be an acceptable compromise. SuperMarioMan 19:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That footnote on Unacceptable use, Text example 5 was added March 2011 following discussion at WT:Non-free content/Archive 51#A little different question. The discussion and the footnote state that it is advice from the "Wikimedia Foundation's associate counsel". Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not buying the footnote. This seems to be copyright paranoia which has been added to the guideline recently and does not represent settled policy. What it suggests is that we'd have to delete lists like List of number-one country hits (United States) because these are based upon Billboard's "creative" selection of country music. I do not believe there is community consensus for this. Warden (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Problems with that argument:
  1: the Billboard chart is "calculated weekly mostly by airplay and occasionally commercial sales". In other words, List of number-one country hits (United States) is a compilation of hard statistics based on actual events (plays and sales). The Channel 4 shows were based on loose polls of opinions of people who felt like voting and there is no way of independently verifying how much input Channel 4 themselves had in the final results. Therefore, the two cases cannot be compared.
  2:That argument in general seems like WP:OTHERSTUFF.
  3: It is my understanding that copyright rules (which, after all, are based on the law) over-rule any consensus/settled policy/personal opinions that may (or may not) exist. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Looking at a more current case, the process was that a panel of experts selected a short list of 100. This was then voted upon by an online poll and an opinion poll conducted by the polling organisation ICM. The results of the two polls were then combined and the experts broke the ties. I'm not sure that the process is significantly different in the case of record charts, so far as copyright is concerned. There's a process of expert involvement there too - choosing representative sources and determining genre classifications. Neither of these seem very creative. They seem to be more sweat of the brow in nature and this is not a copyright consideration in the USA, where Wikipedia is based.
2. WP:OTHERSTUFF is very relevant here because it's not a single article that has been nominated but a big bundle. It is therefore appropriate to see what else will be affected by this broad brush action.
3. The support for this action is WP:FU which is a guideline not a hard policy and so has a fair amount of wiggle room. Fair use is, by its nature, a matter of compromise and discretion not an exact rule or law. I don't see how it makes any sense to say that we can summarise the plot of a story like Harry Potter or report who won the Oscars but that we can't summarise the findings of a Top 100 poll like these. What's the difference? Warden (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: Long-time magnet for copyright violations, and the list article contains sufficient detail.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: don't normally like mass deletions but this is copyright infringing territory. The way to summarize these and escape infringement is to incorporate individual ranks into the "reception" section of individual creative works. Quoting entire segments of the lists is asking for trouble from the copyright holder. I don't like how copyright law denies power to consumers. But there it is. Dzlife (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've asked for input about the possible copyvio problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Novickas (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wikimedia Foundation's attorney was approached about this matter when a similar list was brought to the copyright problems board, and her expert opinion is quoted liberally in that footnote. I had been working on a guideline at the time we received her recommendation (User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists), but it has not been completed because I could never launch a community discussion about how to handle it. People don't generally like to talk about copyright concerns. Previously, we had always felt confident with limited selection of much larger lists, such as the 10 out of 500 listed at The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, but she expresses some concern that the top 10 are the most commercially valuable part of the list. Time 100 is an example of such an article that does not reproduce the list at all, but it is easier for that list to critically discuss contents because it is variable. More information on what she recommends in terms of handling these can be read at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content/Archive 51#A little different question and especially the subsection on "Attorney feedback." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the feedback. I'm extremely interested to see the result of this AFD as it seems a clear precedent may well be set.
My interpretation (and I'm open to correction, naturally) is that these articles would only be acceptable if they were not lists but rather objective analyses of the subject matter (based on coverage and commentary from reliable sources) that contained a few references to poll positions (no pun intended) as part of the overall evaluation. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair summary of her position. Based on her feedback, I would say that the specific article in discussion here makes a poor claim for fair use, as there is little transformative about it. Actually, in the version tagged for deletion, there was no critical commentary whatsoever; the only possible appeal to our readers is the list, which would supersede the original. It is only the top 10 of the list, but, again, our attorney points out that the higher numbers are the more commercially valuable. That said, I have just noticed that the only critical commentary that existed was removed without explanation at the time that the list was truncated from complete to the top 10, here. While not restoring the full list, I've brought everything else back. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under A9. — ξ^xplicit 22:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shy (song)[edit]

Shy (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A single by a redlinked group released by no label with no reviews or indication it made the charts. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close please. Ten Pound Hammer has slapped it with a WP:SPEEDY. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 17 September 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) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igralište Kraj Drave[edit]

Igralište Kraj Drave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A 300-seat football stadium which is the home ground of a non-notable football team. No evidence of standalone notability - rather unlikely, given the statium's capacity. Prod was declined. GregorB (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable stadium for a non-notable team. GiantSnowman 19:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No indication the subject meets WP:GNG. Given that the team it hosts in notable as well, this is not all that surprising. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep – nominator has withdrawn, and there are no remaining "delete" recommendations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confident (chair)[edit]

Advanced search for:  "Confidante"
In books/documents  Google Books  · Questia Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news  Google News: recent  · archives Questia  · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media
In academic/legal journals  and reference works  Google Scholar: academic  · legal Microsoft Academic: new  · original Oxford Reference  · JSTOR PUBMED Central  · Questia HighBeam  · Internet Archive
World Wide Web pages  Google Web Search  · Advanced Search Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4 Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free)  Google  · Flickr
More  Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Confident (chair) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced and I doubt it's notable JDDJS (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't WP:VERIFY that this name is actually used for this type of furniture. Pburka (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the new version, and rename appropriately. BTW, I've added the old picture (of a tête-à-tête) to the Courting bench article. Pburka (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is generally called a Courting bench or tête-à-tête. We could redirect to the former, but this is unsourced. If there was more to this article, I'd suggest a merge but there's nothing worth moving and what's there isn't sourced. Would anyone actually search for the term "confident chair"? These are also called s-chairs or s-sofas, which are more sensible redirects. Unless someone can come along with an authoritative source using this name for this chair, there's no reason to have this article. freshacconci talktalk 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • You're being misled by an incorrect picture. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ironically, had the article's creator had a better grasp of English, xe would have used the correct French name for this article of furniture. This, in turn, would have led people to discover that Britannica has an article on this. If it's good enough for Britannica to have an article, it's good enough for us. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. Now I got it. Googling "confident + chair" came up with results, none of which were relevant. And yes, the photo gave me the impression the article was about a different chair. Thanks for the clarification. freshacconci talktalk 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question— what is it in the britannica under? i just checked the 1911 to no avail, but would like to check the current edition, because i'd really like to be able to say keep to this one (not saying it quite yet, though). — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to keep per Uncle G's clarification and article improvement. An entirely different piece of furniture. freshacconci talktalk 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep— sorry to be dumb, i didn't even think to look at the article again. nice work. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination Withdrawn due to the recent developments, the page should be kept and this AFD closed. JDDJS (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nivedita Jain[edit]

Nivedita Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not a notable person JDDJS (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article on a former Miss Bangalore[9] who was written of in The Hindu: "Following her debut in the Kannada film Shivaranjini, Nivedita was offered roles in many other films including Balina Daari, Amruthavarshini, Shivasainya, Premaraga Hadu Gelathi. A winner of Miss Bangalore crown, she was on the starcast of the under- production films, Mister Puttswami and Sketch".[10] I think the comparison argument can be made per WP:CSB that if a Miss America is notable to the United States, then a "Miss Bangalore" would be notable to Bangalore, and notable, even if only to Bangalore, is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. More importantly, that same article lists multiple films to have her meet WP:ENT and multiple awards to meet WP:ANYBIO, and the Find sources above shows multiple article that meet WP:GNG.[11] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination Withdrawn due to Schmidt's determination to expand the article to prove notability. JDDJS (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Appreciations on the withdrawal and your instruction that I might close it.[12]. Being the article defender, and having opined above, it is best I do not close it myself. BUT anyone else is welcome to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Schmidt, who seems to have no difficulty at saving AFDs :). 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:40, 19 September 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) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Walshaw[edit]

James Walshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:32, 18 September 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) Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's Choo-Choo[edit]

Mickey's Choo-Choo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Only a short explanation that it's a cartoon isn't enough to make it an article Mbch331 (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a valid stub with plenty of room for expansion. The topic is notable as demonstrated by the large number of Google books hits. Pburka (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that the article is short has absolutely no bearing on whether it should be kept or not. On the other hand, the fact that the cartoon is referenced in scholarly work (e.g. [13]) certainly suggests that it should be kept and tagged with ((expand)). In any case, outright deletion is an unacceptable solution since this should at the very least be redirected to some appropriate target. Pichpich (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all articles have to start somewhere, this was tagged for deletion within an hour of creation! ϢereSpielChequers 20:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep — i added six sources to newly created further reading section, could have added plenty more (thanks, WereSpielChequers!). this is clearly notable, discussed over many years in many, many contexts. easily meets gng. afd is not about whether there's enough in the article to make it an article, it's about whether there's enough in the world to make it an article. perhaps nominator could look over WP:BEFORE? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — i fixed this up a little, just to show what could be done. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - To me, the nominator says "It's too short. Instead of expanding it myself, I think it should be removed entirely". WP:BEFORE and all that. →Στc. 22:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - More reliable sources added to article. It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - TP 03:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Butch Gang[edit]

Crazy Butch Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Falls into the WP:Notability crime section Cox wasan (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient references to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — it's the same argument as all the others. this is a notable subject because it's covered by multiple reliable sources, which are listed in the actual article. yes, there are no inline citations, but they are not required. this feels like a huge waste of time. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The references in the article already establish notability. If you click on Google book search, you can look through those results and find additional ones if you want, but two is all you need. Dream Focus 04:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - established notability trough references.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 22 September 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 dermatome (anatomy). v/r - TP 03:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dermatome (embryology)[edit]

Dermatome (embryology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Very little information in the article. Looks more like a dictionary entry in stead of an Encyclopedia entry. Mbch331 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article can cover dermatomes in embryo but it needs expansion and reliable source under WP:MEDRS. I think author must be given time to expand this topic  Dr meetsingh  Talk  19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't have to be complete to keep it, but it needs more information than 1 line even to be an ((stub)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbch331 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep — this is a truly notable body part, as, almost certainly, are all named body parts (yes, even the Philtrum). i added four sources to newly created further reading section in article, but could have added dozens more. this body part is implicated in herpes zoster and other notable diseases. really, afd isn't a place to say that articles suck, it's a place to say that the subjects of articles make the articles inherently unencyclopedic. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing this article could say that ought not to be covered in the existing article dermatome (anatomy) instead. This article has no useful content, and there is really no existing information that belongs in it. If dermatome (anatomy) was such a huge article that it could not be expanded, then this might be justified as a subarticle, but that's very far from being the case. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - More sources in article now. It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! None of the listed sources relate to embryology. There is no question that dermatomes are notable enough to deserve an article, but we already have one, dermatome (anatomy). Looie496 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment— striking my keep per Looie496. i'm not as careful a reader as i like to think i am, it seems, and i don't know enough about this to have an opinion — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant. We have dermatome (anatomy). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to dermatome (anatomy), add info on development and on phylogeny. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punyamurtula_Kishore[edit]

Punyamurtula_Kishore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:SOAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, section 4. No self-promotion:

I don't find this physician to be particularly notable, and all his links go to outside sites, some of which don't work. I also find it suspicious that the person who created this article has no other activity on Wikipedia, aside from editing this article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. A GP specializing in addiction medicine who runs a chain of clinics in Massachusetts. Google Scholar results are negligible. Google News finds a few mentions (you have to search under P.S. Kishore - which also provides links to other people of the same name, but Punyamurtula Kishore finds nothing at all). The article contains many exaggerations and outright inaccuracies, as exemplified by this claim: "He began his medical career as a primary care/family practice physician and then moved into a position as the Medical Director of the Washingtonian Center for Addictions, the first organization in the U.S. to recognize addiction as a disease. Their philosophy was an early precursor to the AA or 12-step program movement." A good trick, considering that the AA movement was founded in the 1930s and the Twelve-Step Program was published in 1939. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/09/22/brookline_doctor_pleads_not_guilty_in_medicaid_kickback_case/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.136.35 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for that breaking news. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this recent development is not a reason to keep the article. The charges are only that, charges - and Wikipedia is understandably careful about publicizing unproven charges against living people. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - TP 03:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry454[edit]

Symmetry454 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This topic does not appear to have sufficient notability to merit an article. Google books hits 0, Worldcat hits 0, Google scholar hits 1, JSTOR hits 0. The topic might merit a brief mention in an article on calendar reform. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge (somewhere). The article includes four references from reliable sources spanning an eight year period. Pburka (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Calendar reform#Proposals. There are sources here, but there's not a lot of material. It could easily be covered in the table there. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — it could be covered in the table there, and probably should be covered in the table there, but the fact that it could be covered somewhere else is not an argument for page deletion. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• keep — four reliable sources over a multiyear span more than meets the gng. yes, the article needs work. yes, the sources should be cited inline. but the sources exist and they speak to the notability of the topic. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe others have a different idea of a "reliable source" from me. I had some idea that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources [...] in history, medicine, and science." I note that alf.laylah.wa.laylah has kindly classified this discussion into the science category. If this was a notable scientific topic, it would have received attention in scientific peer-reviewed journals. It has not (the school magazine of Dr. Bromberg's university, while undoubtedly an academic publication, is not an academic journal). Ergo, it is not notable. Or at least is not notable enough to merit an article; Calendar reform#Proposals is probably a good place for it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — the specific notability guidelines don't override the gng and this article, in my opinion, meets that guideline. the fact that it's not discussed in scientific journals, if true, would be because calendar reform is a political issue, rather than a subject of scientific investigation. the scientific problems of calendars are generally well understood by this point. i transcluded it over there because it seems like people who are interested in this kind of thing might watch that list, not as a comment on the suitable notability guideline. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hemphill Brothers Coach Company[edit]

Hemphill Brothers Coach Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Non-notable company. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Apparently the US Secret Service bought 2 buses from them for 1.1 mils each, as said here and here. The Telegraph also says that they supplied buses to Madonna, Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez and the Pope. These buses seem all fancy and state-of-the-art, AND are being covered by foreign media as well. Sounds notable to me. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks notable enough to me, too. Enough coverage in reliable places. Peridon (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Judging from the amount of easily accessible sources via internet, it appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion. This article shouldn't have been referred to AfD in the first place.Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Therefore, I request speedy closure of the AfD, to include the article in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 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. There's genuine disagreement on the sufficiency of the sources with no consensus either way. Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mineo[edit]

Mike Mineo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blurred63 (talk · contribs) nominated as an RFD with this rationale:

This is not a notable person. It is a local musician; the only citations are to local publications. Artists should not be listed unless they have some degree of notability, which this person does not. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't sound notable. Local musician, with no indication of notability outside his township. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, the Sun Sentinel, the Salt Lake City Weekly, and The Palm Beach Post. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic (see above). Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Salt Lake City Weekly is trivial coverage as it just a paragraph to announce a tour date. We are left with three non-trival local sources that were generated within months of each other. All talk about how local kid as new album out and where you can see his shows. There is no references or any indication of notability outside of Broward County. Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found by Paul Eric. Hobit (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feararchy[edit]

Feararchy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication that this term has come into common usage even in academic circles; see WP:NEO. PROD was contested by author. Significant COI issues here, as well. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neologism. Google search indicates it has failed to gain acceptance. Not notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. Can't find popular use of this term anywhere using Google. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: not a notable neologism, and one person's pet theory. It is estimated that over 70 to 80% of all American organizations, corporations, federal and state governments, universities, and others are feararchies, subduing employees and contributing to the downfall of the organizations and society. I probably ought to get working on using fear to bring about the downfall of society, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little disappointed that with a handle like that, you're not pro-Feararchy, right or wrong. :) --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's comments, a merge doesn't appear to be appropriate. Consensus is to keep the article/content so further merge discussion can happen on the talk page. v/r - TP 03:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Horowitz[edit]

Harry Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Falls into the WP:Notability crime section (A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article) Cox wasan (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — the sources in the article alone establish notability. this fellow is not known only for committing a crime. he was a gang leader and was written about by one of the foremost criminologists of the 20th centure. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. That guideline is really referring to WP:ONEEVENT. It's not intended to block all articles about criminals. Horowitz was a notorious gang leader who was known for his many crimes over an extended period of time. Pburka (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Lenox Avenue Gang. His biography section has nothing that's outside his gang life. The two articles would be better off together. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - See this and read the articles about this individual. Topic is notable per notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - to Lenox Avenue Gang as per Ratibgreat's comment. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• comment— after reading a bunch of old nyt articles, i'm not convinced that he was actually a leader of the lenox avenue gang. none of the stories published between 1912 and his execution in 1914 mention this connection, and there's not much about him in material on the lenox avenue gang from contemporary nyt stories. only herbert asbury seems to think he was in it. this is one reason i think a merge would be inappropriate. also, i've rewritten the entire article to emphasize what seems to be the real source of his notariety. maybe you all could take a look at it to see why i think a merge wouldn't be the best solution? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - TP 03:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afaria[edit]

Afaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deleted on 7 June 2011 as an unambiguous advertising or promotion. Was nominated for CSD today for the same reasons. However, a rewrite since June has made it not quite unambiguous. RA (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of notability, written like an advertisement, writer is being investigated for sockpuppetry and seems to have a COI.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of notability, indeed. Although the criticism section gives an air of independence to the writing my (subjective) view is that the article reads like advocacy for the article's topic. Material is lacking which references third parties discussing the significance of this product in its field and making assessment. Thincat (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC) (signing my comment about a week late!)[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. article improved - strong policy driven consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humpty Jackson[edit]

Humpty Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

= Falls into the WP:Notability crime section (A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article) Cox wasan (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. That guideline is really referring to WP:ONEEVENT. It's not intended to block all articles about criminals. Jackson was a notorious gang leader who was known for his many crimes over an extended period of time. Pburka (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep — again, i don't see how you're reading the notability guideline. there is not a single crime that made this person notable. he was involved in many ongoing crimes, as attested to by numerous reliable sources, cited in the actual article. herbert asbury, the encyclopedia of crime, and the montreal gazette aren't enough for you? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Refer to this and read the articles. Well documented historical events satisfy WP:CRIME, perpetrators section, #2 - "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, numerous sources establish the subject's notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 24 September 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) Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Davidson[edit]

Philip Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

= Falls into the WP:Notability crime section (A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article) Cox wasan (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — as i've said in the other two (at this point) articles like this that you've nominated, i think you're seriously misreading the notability guideline. this person is obviously notable just from the sources cited in the article. a search is not even necessary. three nyt articles plus herbert asbury makes the guy notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, like the others. Pburka (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No basis for nomination. See article refs. Request speedy closure of this AfD, to keep, of course. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep northameria1000 are right. No basis for nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 22 September 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 Virginia Bioinformatics Institute. v/r - TP 03:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NIMML[edit]

NIMML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability concerns per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Suggest a merge with Virginia Bioinformatics Institute. RA (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think a merge is appropriate. Virginia Bioinformatics Institute has sections for the major divisions within the institute, but no indication that a single lab such this warrants inclusion in that article. We certainly don't have articles for individual research labs or groups within a research institute, and I don't see how a redirect for this title would be useful.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nominator suggests though I doubt editorially that much material would actually be warranted at VBI. I do not see notability adequately established but neither do I see any need for the article's history to be removed. Thincat (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant content into the VBI article. Individual laboratories are very unlikely to be notable for the purposes of an individual article, unless they have produced Lasker and Nobel prize winners. JFW | T@lk 08:14, 18 September 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. with salt joe decker^{talk to me} 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Guidotti[edit]

Trey Guidotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article has been speedily deleted and recreated several times; I am bringing it to AfD for broader discussion. The subject of this article does not appear to meet any part of the notability criteria at WP:BIO, as the sources are not independent of the subject and the those linking to the subject's product line appear promotional, as well. VQuakr (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Surely, if he were a celebrity, he'd be mentioned in a news article somewhere. Pburka (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero hits in Google News. Not notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing found at Google News. No Reliable Sources at Google. No Reliable Sources cited at the article, just things like YouTube, and self-referential material from a company which distributes one of his products. If the article has been recreated several times as VQuakr says, consider Salting it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A celeb known for his photography, the article claims. I hadn't heard of him myself, but I must confess that my eyes do tend to glaze over when I encounter the C word. I put that aside and dutifully went to his website. There was a link to his photos. This is it. What do we see? No mention of any photobook by Guidotti or exhibition by Guidotti, let alone any critical commentary on the photographic oeuvre of Guidotti. We do see that Trey Guidotti seems to love both Trey Guidotti and people expressing their love for Trey Guidotti. Ahhh. Delete, for the fourth time. Four times are more than enough, so salt. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article was previously deleted three times, the last of which came after I tagged CSD A7 and G11. Subject hasn't received significant coverage. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "He is a Celebrity known for his product line and photography" What evidence is there that he is a celebrity with limited/no coverage in Google? (Flickr and YouTube are not reliable sources) 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO absent coverage in reliable sources; claims to WP:ENTERTAINER etc. with the music video and the book are...weak is a nice way of putting it. I see that this has been deleted several times; at least now that it's going to be deleted in AfD we'll be able to G4 it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - TP 03:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kawthekar High School[edit]

Kawthekar High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Advertisement of school Day000Walker (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep according to established consensus that almost all high schools are notable as important, enduring institutions in their communities. This brief article has no resemblence to an "advertisement". Improve it through normal editing. Article survived a previous AfD, and I don't see what has changed since then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no good reason to delete a major high school. Indian schools have a notoriously poor Internet presence and the better way forward is to look for local sources and expand the page from them. Merging into a new umbrella Pahandharpur Education Society would also be an acceptable way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per longstanding near- or actual consensus that high schools are presumed notable and anyone asserting they are not has to give a plausible explanation. I can't speak for Indian schools but in the United States a plausible explanation would be "special-purpose high school lacking competitive sports teams or any other feature of notability common to most high schools in America." If I saw an AfD for such a school in America that had a plausible reason to claim non-notability then the burden of proof shifts back to the "wiki-normal" where those claiming notability need to show it. I assume from the comments at the first AfD that this high school is about as notable as other high schools in that part of India. So I say "keep" until someone can say that this school is somehow different and not as notable as other high schools in India. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sole reason behind the nomination is "advertisement". The article is clearly NOT an advertisement. Deterence ^Talk 05:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing notable about this school and I can't find anything on google about the school. Most of the info that comes back refers to either the wikipedia entry or the entry for Pandharapur itself. At the most this deserves a redirect to the city's page. As far as giving anything an internet presence goes, wikipedia isn't really the place for that. Fails WP:Notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

• Comment - no-one is suggesting that we are about giving this school an Internet presence. The point being made is that because of Indian schools' poor web presence Google searches are well nigh useless in finding sources. Time needs to be given for local sources to be researched and added. It is is not possible to say, at this time, that the school is not notable - only after local sources have been researched can we say that. Experience indicates that high schools throughout the world, each of which are a major presence in their communities and directly affect thousands of lives, are notable. If this school was located in the US, because of the good Internet coverage there, there would be no suggestion of deletion. Attempting to delete based on web searches is an example of systemic bias, and this should be avoided. When, as here, an article is on a likely notable subject we don't delete; we tag and improve over time. TerriersFan (talk) 00:08, 25 September 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} 19:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Denys[edit]

Damon Denys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Long-time unreferenced WP:BLP of an artist who fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. A Google news search only finds his name in lists of artists in Utah. The article states that the artist doesn't permit public exhibition of his work, which is unfortunate as that might help bolster a notability claim. The only substantial edits to the article from two WP:SPAs. Pburka (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNR. Not "permitting" public exhibition of his work sounds a bit like spin to me and the nominator is correct that having an exhibition record would help to establish notability as this would lead to actual sources. freshacconci talktalk 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Even what's said here is verifiable, I don't see why he stands out among a list of other artists. WP:AdvertisementCantaloupe2 (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. The nominator didn't provide a reason for deletion (WP:SK #1). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Hanoomanjee[edit]

Maya Hanoomanjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Better create a fan page on a social networking site. Day000Walker (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Being a cabinet minister in a national government is notable. The nominator has provided no valid reason for deletion. Pburka (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Keep. The nominator has brought this and other articles to AfD within an hour of creation. A Google search shows ample coverage readily available. I'll go through it and try to source the article. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The link already in the article provides enough proof to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN as a member of parliament and a government minister. RS coverage (such as here and here) confirm notability even if they concentrate on one controversy. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am weary of nominations that do not provide any rationale for deletion or supply any deletion criterion. I wish such nominations could be speedy closed. If the nominator is unwilling or unable to provide an argument I do not see why others should inconvenienced. Good night. Thincat (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per author request (WP:CSD#G7). Hut 8.5 17:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bairagimadam Temple[edit]

Bairagimadam Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Before publishing a page, Kindly confirm first, if It is significant. I think India has a temple on every nook and corner, & most of them read "पर्ाचीन"/"Ancient" we can not dedicate billions of pages on them. Day000Walker (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - TP 03:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Print Council of America[edit]

Print Council of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I was unable to find any secondary source coverage of this organisation, and as such it fails WP:CORP. See comment below on why I believe it now satisfies notability guidelines. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a number of independent references, such as The artist's guide to his market, and Handbook of Audubon prints, and Art market research: a guide to methods and sources, and Printmaking in America: collaborative prints and presses, 1960-1990, and German expressionist prints: the Marcia and Granvil Specks collection. The organization may not be widely known among the general public, but it is known and notable among print experts, and the topic is encyclopedic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Significance within a particular field might garner a cite within related articles, but significant third-party coverage is needed to establish Wikipedia:Notability. JFHJr (㊟) 08:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per sources cited above by user Cullen328 and these sources, many of which are quite reliable: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not independently notable.- Well, its looking a bit notable after User:Cullen's improvements - I am seeing some ... reporting of the group in independent reports, so I am moving to at least... neutral leaning - keep now. Off2riorob (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rob. I've continued working on the article, trimmed mediocre references, reformatted bare urls, added high-quality independent references and two external links, and expanded it. I think it meets our standards now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done, it's greatly improved now. Off2riorob (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to Jim and Northamerica1000 for rescuing this one. I listed the article without having found the found sources which Jim and Northamerica1000 provided (must not have looked hard enough!), and it is now clearly notable with reliable, significant, and secondary source coverage. I'm happy to withdraw it and speedy keep but per WP:SK I'll have to wait for John to change his opinion too. Certainly both merit a barnstar for their rescuing efforts :) Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:30, 23 September 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.