< 29 September	1 October >

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony fansites[edit]

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

While Equestria Daily and Ponychan (it could be it's own article, but sources are a bitch to find for it) are notable and can easily be independent articles, there is not really a huge need for this list, and it seems like it's more meant for the G4 sites (the Brony ones). Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declared neutrality: While I have no intentions to withdraw the nomination, I have no opinion on voting for deletion or keeping. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 23:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is not a notable topic.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be honest, a useless list. I'm not even sure why I made this now. SalfEnergy 00:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Abortion. Lugnuts (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony or My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, as appropriate. Powers ^T 15:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources this crosses into the arena of self-promotion. Any notable fansites can be covered in the main article. Dzlife (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Could be directed to the Internet fandom section of the FiM article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Unless somebody can show that there is a large number of fan sites that are notable, I see no reason for this article -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless, nonnotable. Neutrality^talk 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The question being considered here is "is the criteria of signficant, non-trivial coverage present?" The consensus would seem to be that there is not - the references provided (both in the article and in the discussion) are dismissed as either minor mentions or no-mentions. I have ignore the comment from TodayILearned, as that user has edited nothing other than this page and the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Ashman[edit]

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with the general or topical notability guidelines for filmmakers. The references provided mention the subject either briefly or not at all. No significant coverage in reliable or independent sources. ~~Edited to add Speedy delete due to G12 copyvio of http://noelashman.com/index.php?pr=Bio~~ (copyvio removed) Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I fail to see how this does not satisfy WP:GNG given the sources cited in the article. Purhaps a bit more explanation on this point is necessary beyond a mere assertion. According to the article itself, supported by its citations, he has some fairly note-worthy credits that suggest notability in his field. The article also indicates that he has notability, again supported by reliable sources, as a club owner, having owned some rather notable establishments. Agent 86 (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The threshold for meeting this criteria has not been met. The references provided merely mention the subject briefly or not at all. This does not equate to significant coverage about the subject. Being a business owner is not an indication of importance and/or significance. While the clubs may be notable, this does not automatically confer notability to the owner. Notability is not inherited. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be one of those people on the cusp of notability, but not quite there. Gets noticed because he is around famous people sometimes. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unhappy Weak Keep. There seems to be, barely, enough newspaper and magazine coverage to meet the GNG and enable an editor to write an adequate article. Not that I can see why anyone would want to. The article is lousy, and the subject now uses it as his promotional bio. [1] I wish it were a copyvio, but it looks like he's just swiped it without proper attribution. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How do the references provided equate to significant coverage? The references mention nightclubs owned, rather than the subject himself. And honestly, now that you've pointed out the subject's website, how does the article not equate to a copyright violation? It's a blatant and unambiguous copyright violation. The website has even gone so far as to designate the content as copyrighted. I see no indication that the subject has donated the material to use on WP. It may look like they swiped it, but we can't go on assumptions here. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's a copyvio because it looks to me like the subject copied the Wikipedia article. When I compare the subject's bio page to the original, even more promotional way that the article was originally written, it follows the toned-down text that I and other users forced on all those apparent sock editors. Also, the subject's bio page seems to postdate the text involved; and, via the Internet Archive and other places, I can't find any sign that the bio page existed until the second half of 2010, well after the article text was in place. I'd searched in the past for potential copyvio sources, but none had turned up during prior disputes over the article. As for notability in general, there are so many news sources out there -- 80+ pieces in the New York Times alone, some of course quite trivial or repetitive; a small pile in New York magazine; and even more in other NYC-based media -- that I fear a short but adequate article could be written. I just couldn't bear slogging through all the gossip, entertaining as some of the stuff that can't go into the article was, like the complaints from ex-employees who complained his clubs stiffed them. I think he's a self-promoting parasite who contributes nothing of value to society, even if my opinion were verifiable, he'd still be a notable leech. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Now that was funny! Still laughing. No, really. As far as the copyvio, I can understand and appreciate your logic, but it doesn't absolve us from going on proven fact, rather than assumption. Thanks for the response. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 06:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the references listed satisfy WP:GNG, although it could certainly use some more. Will help repopulate the page for those of us who are interested in this subject matter.

Todayilearned (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I've removed all copyright violations from the article - that may leave it bare-bones, but, if somebody can re-populate the sections with original content, that would avoid copyvio. m.o.p 02:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Per several reliable sources that establish topic notability, including, but not limited to:~~ Per references I cited below in comment. The references listed below were blanket-deleted hastily in an article revert. Some of these verify information in the article, and some serve to qualify topic notability.

"New Yorkers & Co". The New York Times. 1995-05-28.
Century, Douglas (1999-11-21). "The Extra 'V' in Very V.I.P." The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-20.
Jacobs, Andrew (1998-11-22). "A Fallen King Tries to Comeback". The New York Times.
"Looney Chicks". The Village Voice. 2004-02-03.
"Sightings…". The New York Post. 2007-11-18.
Weber, Bruce (2001-06-07). "THEATER REVIEW; The Pooch Has the Last Word, Wiseguys". The New York TImes. Retrieved 2010-05-20.
Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure what your thoughts are, but the second and third sources you provided above do not mention the subject at all, while the other three merely offer a brief mention in passing. None of these equate to significant coverage. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Correction, please refer to: [2], [3] (the correct page in the article to refer to), [4]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes there are some articles that mention him. No this is not significant coverage, not significant enough to establish the subject as worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another reliable source, beyond a passing mention: Chaplin, Julia (September 19, 2004.) "Nell's Returns With a New Name, New Stars and a Cleaner Floor." The New York Times. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's two mentions and a single sentence quote.......not exactly in-depth coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Noel Ashman fails the GNG. Both the sources in the article and those listed above by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) are passing mentions of his ownership of a club called Veruka. None of this amounts to significant coverage. Goodvac (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almeera Jiwa[edit]

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

Non-notable entertainer of little prominence, even locally, not meeting the criteria of WP:NACTOR. The sources are mostly from local theatre productions advertising their shows. Has no real or significant media coverage. The one news article cited does not feature her in the article other than to include her name in the caption of a photo of a number of performers. The article has been orphaned since October 2009, and there do not seem to be any articles in which reference to her can plausibly be made, which supports the conclusion that there is little, if any, notability. Agent 86 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Imdb shows bit parts in 7-8 nothing projects, mostly TV. Stage work seems even less notable, although a part in a random Shakespeare performance did garner a total of about ten words (all negative) in two local reviews focused elsewhere. Nowhere near WP:NACTOR. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some coverage about a single stage role and not much else. That's no enough signficant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors may discuss the possibility of merging on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-Forbes billionaires[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Admits to being non-exhaustive; given how many billionaires exist, this just lists a few and isn't a good representation of the subject. Appears to have previously have been voted to merge, but nothing happened. Kansan (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May as well be "list of billionaires" which, by the subject's limitation and the introduction to the list, may not be reliably sourced in its inclusions. I too was struck by the disclaimer that it is not exhaustive, suggesting that it is too vague to continue as a separate article. Moreover, do we really need lists of things that are defined by inclusion in one source but not another? Agent 86 (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is a list being incomplete a reason to delete? Jesanj (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This proposed deletion is silly, in my mind. The last one closed as merge. Unless I'm missing something, that means the previous consensus saw value/potential here. Therefore, one would need to make an argument as to why we should delete this information off of Wikipedia, but I don't see a rationale given for this. The Forbes list of billionaires article is simple and therefore easy to maintain. I'm not sure how to successfully structure a merged list of billionaires article. Maintaining the distinction between Forbes and non-Forbes billionaires may be a useful aid. Since when is "could be improved" a reason for deletion? Jesanj (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A discriminate and narrowly focused list that is notable and verifiable. Passes WP:NLIST (lists of people guidelines), per many references in the article that verify content in the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss merging with Forbes list of billionaires. This should be one List of billionaires (currently a redirect page). Biophys (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps, and wp:NLIST.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect both this list, and the Forbes list of billionaires, into a single List of billionaires. Neutrality^talk 18:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename of course. The Forbes list of billionaires articles dated from 2004 to 2011, with only 2010 missing. Those articles are for what is on a notable list. They do not include people who are heads of state or royalty in their list, and exclude others as well. A list of billionaires should exist for all billionaires, not just those on any one list. Don't merge, just rename this one, and copy information over that is valid. Dream Focus 08:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. There's just no reason to have a list citing one reliable source, and another list citing other reliable sources.--~T P W 12:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a lot of "Merge" recommendations here; however, as the nominator noted, this solution was previously proposed but never acted upon. It would be unfortunate to keep this unnecessary unencyclopedic article on the basis of yet another merge recommendation. Agent 86 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think merge should default to keep, not delete. The information is encyclopedic, the consensus shows (to date). The delete rec certainly does not have consensus support above. The only issue is one of format -- whether to keep it as a stand-alone, or as a merge. I tend not to think the difference between the two very great; the difference between either of them and delete is much greater, however. And, of course, AfD is not the place for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other Vivastations[edit]

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

In two past AfD's, most VIVAstation articles were successfully deleted, with exceptions mostly being terminals. This article was originally created because, due to consensus at the time that most VIVAstation articles were notable, some VIVAstations were determined to not be notable and were lumped into one giant collection of unnotable stations to avoid deletion. Quite simply, none of these stations are notable- and that means that the entire article has no more purpose here. You can even seen from the pictures that these aren't major transportation hubs, but are rather small roadside equivalents of bus stops. Let's finish the job and delete this page. Slon02 (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Slon02 (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Slon02 (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is now redundant without the previously deleted related articles. I originally created this page to fill in the gaps where Viva stations did not have their own article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I deleted per WP:CSD#G7 at their author's request a string of templates such as Template:S-line/YRT right/Viva Purple used in this article; it has been suggested to me that deletion was premature and that I should have waited until the fate of the article was determined. I will restore them if anyone feels it necessary for this discussion. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Since most of the articles were previously deleted and the remaining use of the templates all redirected to the same page, or had red links, the succession just did not function properly. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont object so much as the article still exists and has a bunch of G7 templates on it. If we remove them from the article, then it doesnt matter one way or another to me.--v/r - T P 00:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although Vivastations were determined to not be notable individually, there are a few which have interesting histories, such as Warden Vivastation, the first BRT station to be built. I moved some notable and terminal stations here after their individual articles were deleted. I propose renaming this article "Notable Vivastations", keeping the entries for MSH and Warden, while deleting the ones with next to no content. Reaperexpress (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While Warden is a true BRT station, if it is notable enough it should be able to sustain its own article, or be merged into VivaNext, or it could be part of an article on Viva Rapidways. I can find no details about the Enterprise Rapidway in Wikipedia except where it relates to photographs you took of the Warden Vivastation. The MSH Vivastation is only one curbside bus shelter beside Markham Stouffville Hospital, one of the poorest examples of station facilities. We are the main contibutors here, and we both agree that very little of the content is worth keeping. Why don't you merge what you feel is worthy of retaining and choose to delete the rest? Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete -- My doubts about this article is that it seems to be about busstops, which are clearly NN. I would not recommend merging with Viva, as that would unbalance the article. Accordingly if kept. rename to "Notable Vivastations" or just "Vivastations". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - These Vivastations are essentially glorified bus stops. We don't need a list of bus stops. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're slightly glorified bus stops. PK T(alk) 13:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - A3 by Athaenara (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rineen[edit]

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

Not verifiable, existance? Fictionnal. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 21:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per ((db-nonsense)), given the content of the page and lack of verifiability. Agent 86 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per ((db-nonsense)). - DonCalo (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, but wouldn't it be ((db-nocontext))? The sentence itself is perfectly understandable — frankie (talk) 23:47, 30 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. v/r - T P 12:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Munchman (tabletop electronic game)[edit]

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

Sources are forums and a Flickr picture, which is apparently enough to dodge prod. No non-trivial sources found. Page has almost entirely been untouched since creation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I found this price guide which would indicate people collect this, but I can't find significant coverage about this device. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Pac-man#Remakes and sequels. Given some weak sources that have been identified, I think it's enough to justify inclusion in the Pac-man article, but there's not the coverage needed to establish notability for a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pac-man#Remakes and sequels. There really isn't enough coverage, or content to warrant a separate article. However, some of the content may be relevant to the Pac-man article. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - has some decent coverage in this book (I have the book) but that's only one source..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was the original creator of the article (benkid77). I'm sorry due to being busy in real life I have not had time to improve some articles I previously created (which is why I previously retired - lack of time). I think this article is a borderline case. For the moment I have added a reference and ISBN number from the book stated above which does cover this game. I'm not sure if I'll be able to find any other references. Hopefully that may be enough to prevent immenent deletion. If so I'll see if the article can be improved any further at all. I can find a few sites on the web discussing this game, but probably they would fall short of the more rigorous requirement of authorative sources. Not sure if these other sources would be enough in conjunction with the above book. I'm in my place of work right now. Although, I'll have another scout around this evening if I get a chance. Thanks all. Rept0n1x (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK I've now addressed some of the issues and improved the article a bit. I've added a few new sources today per the deletion debate. (Two of which are books with ISBN numbers. one is the price guide and the other is the TV Cream book as mentioned above). To address the nominators concerns, I have removed the flickr picture reference as I agree this is not suitable for a reference. I should also note that there were no forum references. One reference was admittedly a blog, but I'm not using that to establish notability, simply as an informative review of this product. I can see at a glance the page in question does have a "forum" header, but that's just a link to the forum section of the site and not a forum in its own right. (Although there are user comments under the blog.) I thought I should clarify that. I know it's still not an authoritative source but a professionally-written blog is a bit better than a forum post IMHO.

I do understand the arguments regarding merging, but I've now expanded the article a bit and added more information. Some other standalone articles such as Hangly-Man and Monster Munch are much more similar to the PacMan video games (one is just a bootleg hack of the original). They are also video games. Conversely, this article about "Grandstand Munchman" is about a tabletop electronic game, which is not really the same as a video game. I argue that it is distinctive in its own right, particularly because of its unique design. Also the main pacman article is already quite long. I do agree that coverage of this Munchman product is limited, but I strongly think that there is scope for even further future expansion and improvement of this article. I also suggest that the article already contains enough information to justify its existence as a standalone article, certainly it is already larger than many other video game and electronic game related articles. This game IMHO was a cultural phenomenon at the time of its release, as illustrated by the other references I have added today, not least by the fact that it is on display in the retro collection at Plymouth University, England. I don't have any further time to work on the article at the moment, but I hope my few improvements and additional refs added today are enough to save the article. I'll now leave it to the closing admin. I should also say that despite the additional weak sources added, I've added a "refimprove" tag to assist in eventually address the articles remaining weakness. Of course I think that should be left in place should the article survive, until the issue is fully addressed. Thanks Rept0n1x (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This evening, I had another look around for further coverage of this electronic game. As a result I have added another three further references, two of which provide a paragraph on this particular game and another one which simply mentions the unofficial Software simulator of this game available for Windows systems. Whilst I agree that further sources are not easy to find, some coverage is certainly out there from secondary sources. I do think there's enough coverage and references on this game now to merit an article, more so than many similar articles. Due to my additions to the article over the last two days I think at the very least the article now deserves a re-evaluation. Thanks again. Rept0n1x (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Following the cleanup, I think this article adds to the encyclopedia. Not all the sources are that good, but some are clearly reliable. - hahnch e n 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Big Brother 12 HouseGuests (U.S.). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ragan Fox[edit]

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

I am posting this on behalf of an IP editor, who believes the subject does not pass notability guidelines.

Personally, I don't see how it passes our notability guidelines. This is really a puff piece, and the subject--IMO--is not notable as a poet, a professor, a web personality, or anything else. I guess I vote delete. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per practice to the horrid article List of Big Brother 12 HouseGuests (U.S.). We really should take action about the unacceptable practice of allowing such reality TV articles to include such extensive unsourced/primary-sourced BLP content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on now, that's typical deletionist BLP clamoring. It has only fourteen BLPs in it, wonderfully verified by two iron-clad references (only one of which is a Facebook page). Drmies (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tempted to follow up on your suggestion but will let this run its course. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is alright in WP:BIO. He is more than a reality tv star. He is an author/talk show host. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Um he is a "talk show host" for Big Brother, a show that he didn't win, which is his only claim to fame. Non-winners do not traditionally get articles unless they establish their fame OUTSIDE of their reality TV show, which he hasn't done. If he gets an article, every community college professor in the country should get one. Just because you are a fan of someone does not mean you should say Keep when wikipedia guidelines are not followed. Delete 67.246.14.41 (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, excuse me. Where have I said I was a fan of the article's subject. In fact, I really don't care for this person, but that doesn't change the fact that he is notable. His talk show/author fame was way before big brother. Yes he is a college professor, but she has published many books, advocated slam poetry for lgbt rights. Along with being a player on big brother, I think I rest my case. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a "15 minutes of fame" puff piece. No claim w.r.t WP:PROF. Sources are mostly non-specific, blogs, or obscure publications. Uncontroversial delete. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. This article was around long before he did Big Brother. Before doing a reality show, he was one of the pioneers of podcasting; an individual finalist at the National Poetry Slam; the author of two books; had a radio show on Sirius; is the subject of articles in Out Magazine and Genre Magazine; and a prolific author in ethnography. For the record, he isn’t a community college professor. He’s a tenured professor at California State University, and has a lengthy publication record: check out Google Scholar. His contributions to performance and poetry have been noted in university press books and the subject of scholarly debates in journals like Text and Performance Quarterly. The sources aren’t “non-specific, blogs, and obscure.” Many of the references in the article are from national publications and date significantly further back than 2010, when he participated on Big Brother. If anything, his article wasn’t written because he was on Big Brother; quite the opposite, the only reason why the article is being considered for deletion is because he did the reality show. Keep. Keep. Keep. Performativity (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC).— Performativity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment'. To me the fact that this article slid under the radar for 6 years without the AFD coming up only demonstrates how non-notable the subject matter is. 67.246.14.41 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's irrelevant whether the person is tenured or not (see WP:PROF), although "for the record", Fox is evidently not tenured (per Calstate directory search) which lists him as an assistant professor...unless, of course, you're somehow privy to information that hasn't yet been made public. Most of the references are demonstrably not WP:RS, for example:

non-specific: ref 3 is the Austin poetry slam front-page and makes no mention of Fox
blogs: refs 10 and 11 are indeed blogs – the word "blog" is actually in the URLs
obscure: the "Phoenix New Times" is a local, free glossy Alternative newspaper, ref 8 seems to be the subject's thesis (per his own blog), refs 5-7 are dead links, etc.

So, yes, I think those terms aptly describe almost all the sources currently in the article. I have checked sources in GS and I do not see the same results as you claim to see. GS shows an h-index of only 2 (about what you'd expect for asst prof level) and a few books that make a trivial mention of him. All of these findings show a remarkably average impact. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Just as a note, I think blogs associated with traditional media outlets (i.e. the NY Times, NY Post, etc.) are generally considered reliable sources. However I'm on the fence whether or not he's notable enough for an article. At the very least the article needs to be gone through with pruning shears. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody, fails WP:GNG - DonCalo (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the cast list. Received various WP:ROUTINE mentions related to reality TV appearance, plus a very small echo in the blogosphere for the same reason. Seems to have received virtually no attention in the RS realm for poetry or other efforts. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. this used to be the owner of Facebook.com. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). I'll edit what I want.

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AboutFace[edit]

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

I found literally nothing about this company. The company website is dead. Google books, news archive, LinkedIn, Yahoo directory gives nothing. The only exception is the product called AboutFace Directory Server listed for free download here and there. The only trace of the company existence is 2009 snapshot on Wayback Machine. Also, not to be confused with several organizations called by the same name ([5], [6], [7], [8]) ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wayback shouldn't be the only source/Cite.

Disclosure: I am creator/editor of AboutFace (charity) and bumped into this article at that time. If it is deleted, I would like to Move AboutFace (charity) into this location. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could find no evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gredy[edit]

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

Prod by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) removed by author. Non-notable product, no reliable sources found to make this notable. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: author posted a comment on the article's talk page. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did Google searches, on news and on everything. Few references to this product at all, none WP:RS. Also looked at the refs provided in author's comment (see above). They include a powerpoint describing the product from (I'm guessing) the product's maker and a pdf of a testing automation magazine that does not seem to mention the product at all. The nearest to an RS provided was a very brief description in someone's blog. Nor do I see anything that suggests that I would find evidence of notability, if only I knew where to look. If author would like to post new citations that are actually WP:RS, I would be happy to review and change my mind, if warranted. But, as it stands, it's not even close to notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I reviewed the sources noted in the article talk page and none of them represent independent reliable sources. In searching, I can find no coverage whatsoever about this software in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hobbes Goodyear. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Venkman[edit]

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

Tagged as needing more refs for 3+ years and questions notability of the topic since February 2009. No meaningful edits have been made since then to address the issues, and the article still remains an in-universe fan analysis of the character. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewrite the article. Egon Eagle (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has an effort been made to research the topic? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through Google Books Search, Google Scholar Search, and Google News Search but could not find significant coverage about the character that would warrant a stand-alone article. However, the title is a plausible term to search for, so the article should ~~redirect~~ to Ghostbusters (franchise)#Peter Venkman. I would also review the articles highlighted in the franchise article's "Major characters" section. If I could not find significant coverage for Venkman, I doubt similar coverage for the other characters exist, and the stand-alone articles may also need to be redirected to the franchise article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the character has own article in other languages on Wikipedia, is there any solution to fix the article? Egon Eagle (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with keeping the article now. I would trim the Real / Extreme Ghostbusters sections, though. I think it's apparent that Murray's portrayal is the famous one, and I'm fine with having some in-universe information about the character's role in each live action film. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I'm very surprised that there is no significant coverage for the character considering the iconic nature of him but yeah, at the least it should be a redirect not a delete.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Article needs work, but the character is certainly iconic enough to warrant an article. Sсοττ5834^talk 20:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources that assert the claims that this character is "iconic." In order to meet WP:GNG, proof has to be shown that the subject meets the required criteria. You can't just claim "he's iconic" without backing it up. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  What about "one of The 100 Greatest Movie Characters of All Time"? Doesn't that count for something? --Lambiam 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Lambiam noted, one of the "100 Greated Movie Characters of all time", and (so far) none of the other Ghostbusters characters's articles are up for deletion. If they're going to be redirected/merged/deleted they need to be done so as a group, otherwise, kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just added another citation from Empire Magazine that says Vehkman is the most popular character created by Bill Murray. That's pretty signifigant for a notable actor.Mathewignash (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh good grief. Character has appeared in multiple movies, spinoff TV cartoons, and who knows what else. There is no single compelling merge target, so even if the above references hadn't been found, this is clearly deserving of its own article. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget the video game! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ghostbusters (franchise)#Major characters: Notability requires verifiable evidence and there does not seem to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject for this fictional character, particularly sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional character by himself, so I do not believe that he meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject independent from the Ghostbusters franchise. The two sources provided by the article for reception and significance beyond the plot, do not represent significant coverage and they are not secondary sources. As the character is closely associated with the franchise, I believe that redirection is better than deletion in this case. Jfgslo (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd concur, except for the fact that that would leave Venkman as the only Ghostbusters character without a stand-alone article, when he's probably the best-known of the entire bunch (not counting Slimer :P ). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge' not enough sources for my liking. But enough to buy it some time. I sincerely believe this article just needs some improvement and it will meet the WP:GNG. It's borderline, but I hope editors will work to put it into clear indisputable keep territory. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 20:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Sessions[edit]

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

EP doesn't actually seem to exist. —Kww(talk) 20:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible hoax? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. EP does appear to exist. Googling "Drake Bell Nashville Sessions" returns youtube results, torrents, file sharing and this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100906124539AAnkiNA TheMadBaron (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It exists" is not a reason to keep. And if the best you can find is a torrent link and Yahoo! answers, it's clearly failing the verifiability policy. You can't source a torrent, I'm pretty sure that's kinda not legal. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can certainly find all kinds of torrents and people talking about whether it exists, but I can't find a single source indicating that an EP was released in any format.—Kww(talk) 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could try, like, looking.... http://www.last.fm/music/Drake+Bell/The+Nashville+Sessions TheMadBaron (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note the "We don't have any information on this album" line. Note the empty result from the "buy it" link. Note that the cover image was uploaded by a pseudonymous user name "American Toxic". Perhaps you could try, like, critical evaluation of sources ...—Kww(talk) 21:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I'm now giving up trying to provide a verifiable source. But I must ask you this; if you can purportedly download an EP (legally or otherwise), if songs purportedly from that EP are on Youtube, if chords purportedly from a song purportedly on the purported EP are on a guitar website, if the artist is purportedly interviewed just prior to the EP's purported release date talking about the EP he's purportedly working on, if the purported EP has its own Facebook page, if a Google search for the purported EP brings up more hits than you can shake a stick at, then do you still want to maintain that it doesn't actually seem to exist? That it's possibly a hoax? "It exists" is, indeed, not a reason to keep an article about it. However, given the weight of the evidence, I think we would be wise to proceed to debate its notability on the assumption that it does, at least, exist. If it turns out that it doesn't exist, then I'm definitely voting to keep the article on the grounds that it is, quite notably, the. best. hoax. ever. TheMadBaron (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Even the Facebook page only has 4 fans, and consists of a copy of the Wikipedia article. Note that the original creation contained links to another album. I'd be willing to bet that the Facebook page was created as a result of our article. I will admit that it's possible that there was a bootleg of some kind under this name, but I don't think it ever was a legitimate EP. I'll go so far out on a limb as to say that this is the natural consequence of having a hoax about a Nickelodeon star persist undetected on Wikipedia for 14 months. There's still a lot of sites out there that claim that "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" was directed by the director of "Deep Throat", and that's a direct result of a Wikipedia hoax.—Kww(talk) 00:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow. Did The Beatles ever even exist? Is reality itself a wiki hoax? All the citations supposedly demonstrating the existence of the world are self referential....we should probably delete it. Still, I find it hard to believe that the purported EP's entire web presence can be a result of a wikipedia hoax. For one thing, the first Google hit is a YouTube vid uploaded on May 6, 2009, a year earlier than the first Wikipedia entry. And I have to ask, if these songs aren't from the purported EP, then where are they from? TheMadBaron (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why I stated that it's possible that there was a bootleg of some kind under this name. Can't find sources for that either, but seems more likely than an officially produced EP has left no trace on any reliable site while spawning this many torrents and YouTube clips.—Kww(talk) 02:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that it is more likely an early, independent release by an artist who has discontinued its official distribution. That said, I will concede that it is possible that the Nashville Sessions is a bootleg, in which case the article should reflect that. Regardless, the collection is obviously extant, and if these are original songs by a notable artist, and if those songs don't appear on any other collection, then IMHO the article should remain whether it's a bootleg or not. TheMadBaron (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        "It exists" is not a reason to have an article. What about verifying the info? You can't use YouTube links or torrents as a source on wikipedia. And does notability mean nothing to you? It's not inherited, you know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I refer you to my earlier comments. I have already agreed that agreed that "It exists" is not a reason to have an article. I said "I think we would be wise to proceed to debate its notability on the assumption that it does, at least, exist." This is the first time you've mentioned notability. Up until now, the only reason given in favour of deletion is that the EP doesn't actually seem to exist, and so I have only argued that it does. I will be happy to debate its notability if you are happy to concede that it seems to exist. I'm not going to argue for the notability of something which you guys think doesn't exist, because that would be futile. As for verifying the info, the article is clearly in need of references, and it has been tagged as such. Is that, in itself, a reason for deletion? If not, what is your reason? TheMadBaron (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        An inability to find any information about a topic in reliable sources is adequate reason for deletion, yes. And I do still maintain that no EP by the name of "Nashville Sessions" seems to exist.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't ask whether an inability to find any information about a topic in reliable sources is adequate reason for deletion. What I asked was, is the fact that an article lacks references a reason for deletion in itself? If so, there are quite a lot of articles which should be deleted. I don't think it has been established that we are unable to find any information about the topic in reliable sources. It's a topic somewhat obscured by an awful lot of data in sources which are not, by WP standards, reliable, but that doesn't mean that reliable information about the topic doesn't exist, just that it might take a while to find it. I'm disturbed to hear that you still maintain that no EP by the name of "Nashville Sessions" seems to exist; I'm either a) listening to it right now, or b) hallucinating. Before I panic, can you cite a reliable source to prove that you exist? TheMadBaron (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No references currently in an article? Not a reason to delete. No reliable sources to be found after a diligent search? Yes, that's a reason to delete. There's no verifiable content for the article. I didn't nominate this thing after a few seconds of searching, I looked hard enough to convince myself that there was nothing to be found. You downloaded a collection of songs from an illegal downloading site: that doesn't say that there is an EP by this name.—Kww(talk) 22:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, a couple of points here. 1) The references tag was put on the article today. I think you have to give people a chance before you go removing articles lacking reliable references. We have articles tagged as such since February 2005. I do believe that you did conduct a diligent search, but I won't be convinced that there are no verifiable sources showing the EP's existence until every single Google page full of hits have been scrutinized, and I can't believe that you have done that, because there are scores of them, which is why I'm inclined to believe that the EP exists. Well, that and the fact that I've heard it, and it's quite good. 2) The site I downloaded the EP from isn't illegal, though the act of uploading/downloading copyrighted material might be..... are you seriously contending that it is illegal to fileshare an EP that doesn't exist? Because, if you can cite a reliable source showing someone claiming copyright control of these songs, I'd really, really, really like to see it. TheMadBaron (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The picture revealed by my own search, if anyone cares, is of a release (possibly download only) in 2008 (or 2007) by California Records (which might well be the artist's own venture), distributed via Amie Street (which basically gave songs away until they proved popular enough to sell them cheap) but discontinued after Amazon's takeover. The EP's notability is obviously debatable, but I can see no reason at all to believe that this is an elaborate hoax. TheMadBaron (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The bottom line for me is that I'm finding zero coverage in reliable sources for this EP; until/unless such coverage is presented, it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 21:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for citing an actual reason for deletion per Wikipedia policy. I would ask that the debate be kept open for at least 24 hours while I verify your findings. TheMadBaron (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't panic: these discussions stay open for a week. The reason we have them is because the nominator might have missed something that other people can find.—Kww(talk) 23:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing verifiability. With no reliable sources to verify any of the information, the fundamental policy of verifiability is not satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtuosorest[edit]

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

Non-notable product. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this project. ... discospinster _talk 20:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a product, it's a project; what exactly is needed as source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danilo1840 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the Wikipedia (WP) articles on what belongs in WP (notability), what does not (WP:NOT), and what sources are good to show that it belongs (reliable sources). Even if this new product/project is a good idea, that does mean that it warrants an encyclopedia entry in WP. But once it does, and you can provide good, independent, secondary sources to evidence it, please do list it, and also please try to provide additional info on it that people looking it up in WP might be interested in. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, two-line article. Could find almost nothing relating to it on the web, and none of that close to WP:RS. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in any sources. Not even unreliable ones. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if WP:RS that he played for Timisoara is found. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oproiescu Sorin[edit]

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

No evidence that he meet WP:NFOOTBALL Oleola (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't find any proof that this player meets any of the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero Google news hits. No RS hits. About the best I could find is this blog notice [[9]] which may be an out-and-out advert; he's apparently out of football altogether at the moment. He's listed in the article as playing for Politehnica Timişoara, but cannot seem to find him on their WP entry or official website. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it can be verified that he played for Timisoara, he would meet WP:NSPORT, but as it stands, he currently fails that guideline and WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence the article passes any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lee[edit]

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

Just another person. Search on Google web, scholar, books, and news does not locate anything significant about him other than an adequate proof that he exists, but does not appear to have anything in the way of establishing his general notability Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a promo piece. Created as first edit by single-purpose account of Special:Contributions/Ogbryan. Another example of why the policy of allowing accounts to create articles on their first edit needs to change. W Nowicki (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Subject easily meets the "Significant coverage" mandate according the "Notability" statues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogbryan (talk • contribs) 06:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Ogbryan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

argument you say that, but you didn't provide rationale. I gave mine. There is very little to be found on this person and I could not locate reliable materials (covered in WP:RS )) with adequate coverage about him to provide the information written about him without the need for original research. Bibliographies are not specific enough to allow those sources to be identified or verified. Excessive parts of article lacks inline citation. quotation of subject himself from an interview does not establish notability. Since anyone can make blogs, coverage in personal blog does not count as reliable source coverage. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete needs references to establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article claims that he is a "widely acknowledged" expert on search engine technology, but that "wide acknowledgement" is not evident in a search of Google News. He is occasionally quoted in stories about search engines, but nobody ever seems to have written anything ABOUT him, as is required for Wikipedia notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mengyao Zhou[edit]

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

I would call this a classic case of WP:BLP1E, but for the fact that the one event appears to be her death.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Totally fails WP:GNG. - DonCalo (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Young graduate student commits suicide. Father disputes this determination. Some WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP is not a memorial. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a memorial. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunder Ramu[edit]

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

An actor. Only acting experience is in a movie that is currently filming and in an upcoming one. Unable to find any reliable sources about him. Only sources I can find are the same type currently in the article, mentions that he is going to be in the film. Bgwhite (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The film will release within a month, if I am not mistaken. Anyway, Behindwoods and Indiaglitz are reliable sources, though not notable. If you want further sources, check this one published by the prestigious India Today magazine. It has a section about him. But unfortunately, it will remain as stub class for sometime. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 06:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - Even though not a creator of the article, i felt this article needs to be in Wikipedia. His first film Mayakkam Enna is in post production stage set to be released on 26 October, has already signed for another film 3. Karthik Nadar (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is sourced by a half-dozen puff pieces placed ahead of his first movie's premier. If you search, you can find a couple more in the same vein. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Assuming that his movies do eventually begin to appear and he achieves actual notability as a result, then by all means, let's have this article. But not now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I request, let the article be stub for few days... Why to delete and again add up. Karthik Nadar (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because there is no particular reason to believe the if this person releases ten new movies in the next few days that he will suddenly become notable. Please note that WP is not meant to serve as a marketing tool. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Deleting, please do Email me. -- Karthik Nadar (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Nothing to write about the person. Max Longint (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR - has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, with no further claims of notability.--Michaela den (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of any notability. He doesn't yet have an actually acting career.Vincelord (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Angulo vs. James Kirkland[edit]

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

Speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. ((Prod)) contested by author. Lacks WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the first reference, this is "unverified", so delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We can have an article once it's actually scheduled and verifiable. Swarm ^{u / t} 18:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Since it doesn't appear that the fight has officially been confirmed to happen, this falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V, nothing confirmed Secret ^account 02:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query What is the appropriate template to use for notifying a user (in this case the author) that they have removed the ((afd1)) template from an article before the discussion is closed? — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the uw-afd series of templates. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Bout has been officially confirmed by various sources and is officially listed on the BoxRec (MaxPayne888 (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my delete above and am switching to keep, because this indicates that the fight has officially been scheduled. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted per WP:A7; album articles deleted per WP:A9. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triumverate[edit]

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

Band which does not appear to meet WP:N or WP:BAND standards. A google search turns up some social networking, and other selfpublished stuff, but not much in the way of in-depth coverage. Also nominating all of their albums, since if the band isn't notable, it is unlikely their albums are. Jayron32 19:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A7 no assertation of notability. How this has survived so long is beyond me — it was created back when IPs could still create articles, it's that old. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:42, 30 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 speedily deleted (G11) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook Ads guide[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE slakr^\ talk / 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and by "per nom" I meant that the nominators rationale, while short, is sufficient reason to delete, and while I wanted to add support to the deletion of this article, it doesn't seem like a lot of additional text would necessarily add much depth, but if no one leaves support, it gets relisted over and over, and rather than do that, since I also agree with the nominator completely, it would provide help to the closing administrator to have additional people who also agree this should be deleted. Quite frankly, a prod would have worked well too here, so an entire discussion is superfluous, but since it made it here to AFD, it seems like this needed some support. Quite frankly, "per nom" should be enough, given the state of this article, and massive amounts of highly detailed text seems quite silly. Which is why I just said "per nom". --Jayron32 19:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ^Whatever he said. Lynch 7 20:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 - this is a promotional puff piece/"click our links!" advertisement, and should be dealt with accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surfing in Ecuador[edit]

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

I nominated the article for CSD A7, but my nom didn't quite fit. The article is a copy-paste move from other wikilinked articles, and doesn't seem to provide much benefit to the project. It almost seems to violate WP:NOTGUIDE, but others may see that point differently. Also, the article was speedied once for copyvio, but the offending material WAS NOT reintroduced in the reproduction. Ish dar ian 23:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic of surfing in Ecuador probably is a valid subject for an article. However, this article is in no way, shape or form, the basis for such an article as it actually doesn't contain any content relevant to the topic aside from the lede. the bulk of the text has been copied from other wikipedia articles on the individual locations, and done so without attribution. None of the location text actually addresses the topic of surfing in Ecuador. Essentially, this article requires a complete rewrite and as such, deletion is appropriate especially with the attribution violations. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page . Surfing in Ecuador

I have made some edits and think this is a fine outline for ecuador, there are neighbors of ecuador Chile & Peru that have very similar pages. Surfing in this part of South America is fantastic and this article is a worth article

also , with the edits, This article should be within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia.

THIS PAGE SHOULD BE KEPT.......

Twitterwiki (Twitterwiki) 14:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)— Twitterwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - this article, by a newbie, has serious formatting problems, and could use some editing, but is a decent stub. I'm not sure the nominator has bothered to search online to see if sources are available. I found several books that mention the topic, and periodical articles, with just two clicks. A general search and a second search on another webcrawler reveal lots of junk but also possible gems of sources. The topic appears to be notable, and of potential interest to our core readership -- students. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the user is still relatively new, but he has engaged in a pattern of disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. I took a quick peek at the refs before the first speedy and found WP:COPYVIO issues. The books you linked to are mainly reprints of the same travel guide-type information. If somebody can dig up some sources that can improve the article and input them,then I would have no problem withdrawing this nomination. Ish dar ian 21:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page . Surfing in Ecuador

i am a fan of surfing in the galapagos and just added info on, what is to me , world famous San Cristobal Island

all the best to the wiki community to work on the article once it is a stub, also looking at the comments, this is a good thing for the This article should be within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia.

Adammartinavalon (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)— Adammartinavalon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added additional sources to the article, including information from Frommers to verify information and information from "The Encyclopedia of Surfing," a tertiary source. I've also cleaned up the article (grammar, formatting, typos, layout, etc.). This article is able to be further improved, and at this point doesn't need a complete deletion and rewrite. The topic is likely notable per WP:GNG, and it's likely that more reliable sources are available, which I will work on further to establish. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Found another (reliable, secondary) source, added to article: Thyberg, David "Where to Surf in Salinas, Ecuador." USA Today (Travel). Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More newspaper sources added to article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new editor should've had someone talk to them, if there were problems. AFD is not cleanup, its for last resort, after WP:BEFORE has been followed. There are reliable sources found giving significant coverage of this topic. Dream Focus 02:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 20:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Olariu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web search indicates WP:ROUTINE mentions in Romanian football reports. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He is now at Ukrainian Premier League club Oleksandria according to Soccerway, but he hasn't played for them in the league so still fails notability criteria. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Olariu played for Victoria Brăneşti in Romania's Liga I [10]. Now, he plays for Ukrainian Premier League's PFC Oleksandria. He already played in a fully pro league, so the deletion of this article is without sense. --razvanflorian (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't see any sources to confirm that he has played in the Ukrainian Premier league yet, the fact that he has played in Liga I means he passes WP:NSPORT, and I am therefore prepared to withdraw the nommination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he played several Liga I matches for Victoria during the 2010–11 season. Article needs to be expanded, but it clearly passes NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Remains a clear delete for me. Just scrapes by on NFOOTBALL, apparently, but as per WP:NSPORTS, where NFOOTNALL lives:

"Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources." [emphasis added]. Search for non-WP:ROUTINE WP:RS sources comes up empty, so non-notable. If you can find solid RS sources (not mentions in game reports, not listings in player directories, not routine player-leaves/player-joins this-or-that team notices, etc.), would be happy to review and perhaps change my view. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I don't think he scrapes by NFOOTBALL at all (he made 27 appearances and scored 9 goals in Liga I), but in any case, I believe it would pass GNG with a little work. With minimal effort, I've added two references to the article that are more than routine match reports, and just going by Gazeta Sporturilor's site (Search results) it appears that there will be plenty of Romanian-language coverage of him. I've seen plenty of borderline cases, but this is not one of them. Jogurney (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Lindsay-Fuller[edit]

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

Person does not meet WP:Athlete notability standards- William 17:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions- William 17:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not, but I think the WP:GNG may be satisfied, if there was in fact the level of media interest indicated in the article. Powers ^T 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do we know she got coverage from ESPN? A google search only brings up the mentions of ESPN and Lindsay-Fuller based on her WP article.

She was the subject of a USA Today column written here[11] but does that make her notable?- William 18:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only substantial source I found is the USA Today piece, which is sad but the usual WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOT#OBIT source, nothing else regarding her life before her death in a car accident. Secret ^account 05:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horrible accident, but coverage seems WP:ROUTINE to me. WP is not a memorial. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M.A.Padmanabha Rao[edit]

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

This article is written by the person himself, and is looking like advertisement of his own. Check his user page also, its the same. Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search on his name and I'm not bringing up any scientific journals or anything to that nature. All I'm finding is various and multiple sites where the author himself went about proclaiming his "discovery". If I'm reading all of the mess on his page correctly, he claims that his "Bharat Radiation" was discovered in 2010. However, in one forum he was making claims of this discovery back in 2005. Whenever anyone tried to question it, he always directed them back to his personal website. So far his claims don't seem to have been scientifically proven by anyone other than himself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google Scholar throws up many results, but not sure if that's enough to pass WP:PROF. Lynch 7 20:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Delete, after examining academics notability guidelines. Doesn't seem notable enough in his field to pass WP:PROF, nor is he a reputed chair in a university. Lynch 7 11:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google scholar also throws back precisely bugger-all on the subject of "Bharat radiation", which appears to be this guy's main claim to notability. It looks to me (and, judging by some of the search results, every physicist except Prof Rao) like something he made up one day. Given the lack of published work on his principal discovery (and major claim to fame), I call delete; Wikipedia is not the place to announce your fringe theory. As for the rest, it ain't technically policy but: WP:RESUME. Yunshui (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 21 cites on GS. We normally require many hundreds to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fringe-theory-peddling quack. (It's worth nothing that "Bharat" is Sanskirt for "India", i.e. "Bharat radiation" = "Indian radiation".) Fails WP:PROF, WP:RESUME, and (to toss it into the alphabet soup) WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Eriksen[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability, played his entire career at the amateur level .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for the subject to meet WP:GNG, and since he has not played in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 10:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hazel[edit]

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

This article is about an artist that does not appear to meet notability. Some local coverage and local exhibitions, but that's all. Whpq (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, sorry Sarah! Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice pics, fails WP:CREATIVE. Yunshui (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Every reference used in the article is either a blog or does not address the article topic in detail.--Slon02 (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM City North Davao[edit]

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

fails WP:NOTABILITY and violates WP:NOT DIRECTORY. Rxlxm (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Planned future mall. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable mall, blatant PR advertising. Keb25 (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability--Michaela den (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Pepe[edit]

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

Public relations executive with very little on Google apart from this article and his websites, fails WP:Notability Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional: a New York City-based public relations executive for high-level organizations and individuals.... Not only are these individuals high level, but they're also purpled out with epic loot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Alan J. Pepe by the same author was speedied in March 2011. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's references suggest that subject has attended a couple of charitable events. A web search suggests nothing further on the WP:RS front. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - pure vanity bio; non-notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A10) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco (businessman)[edit]

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

Speedy and PROD removed (speedy removed by IP - assumed, but not proven, to be the article creator, which is why I didn't replace it again) without comment. May (just) satisfy guidelines for notability (found one article in the Miami Herald that mentions him), but at present this article is a copy of text on several facebook pages and the subject's blog. It is also overly promotional in tone, and needs rewriting in its entirety to have any hope of being kept. Yunshui (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Ricardo Fernandez Barrueco (businessman) to Ricardo Fernández Barrueco, already extant article on this person. Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recardo Fernandez as not the fellow's name? Mangoe (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mangoe's entirely correct rationale, I am tagging both of these for WP:A10. Assuming that process goes they way it's supposed to, this AfD can close early. Yunshui (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per nom. WP:SPAM - DonCalo (talk) 23:30, 30 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bizeso[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG, no media substantial coverage, no third-party sources provided. Not notable. Heywoodg 12:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there are lots of references available in refrence section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonal.bajaj (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Sonal.bajaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Re-published press-releases though, which don't count as per WP:ORG.. Heywoodg 12:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly unremarkable business, entertainment and social networking site which claims to have more than 3000 web pages. "Referenced" to PR sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why do you think that it is a deletion content, you can see lots of references in the wiki. Also you can search on google about site covering and please do not add these kind of unrelevant tags without visiting site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonal.bajaj (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Sonal.bajaj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. I have locked the page due to repeated removal of the AfD notice. If someone wants to make positive edits to the page, let me or any other admin know and point them here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

indian facebook, lovely site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.129.255 (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — 59.178.129.255 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
LOTS OF SECTION AVAILABLE IN BIZESO VERY UNIQUE CONCEPT I LIKE THIS SITE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyraglora (talk • contribs) 10:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Lyraglora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Article contains nine references, to nine press releases. Web searches show absolutely no RS's. This article is a fairly gross violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
world is still not ready to digest the success of Indian Entrepreneur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.153.137 (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)— 182.68.153.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per nom and Hobbes Goodyear. Clearly promotional. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect as suggested below. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeganeh[edit]

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

Page is for a name with no notability Heywoodg 11:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Delete - there's nothing here to contest. Just a first name with its meaning. Thousands of those available at (WP blacklisted) sites like (www.) babynology.com/meaning-yeganeh-f32.html and similar sites! Not WP stuff at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soup Kitchen International at least until a more notable Yeganeh than Al Yeganeh comes around. §everal⇒|Times 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a miniscule dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia entry. Here is an example of an encyclopedia entry for a name. The WP entry Persian name might be a place to put this, although it might need a new section for names that don't qualify as common, or for all names. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ngom[edit]

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

Page for a surname. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heywoodg (talk • contribs) 10:55, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You've got two notable name-holders, so you cannot have Ngom redirect to either of them as an ((R from surname)). The usual approach is then to create a surname list article in the anthroponymy project. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JHunterJ. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Lynch 7 21:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyoughter, Gorey, Co. Wexford[edit]

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

No evidence of existence at all. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 10:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 20:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that, because I have just found it on the Michelin website located, as the article says, about 5 miles from Gorey (to the south west). Try looking at Michelin here or at the Irish Ordnance Survey here. 'Keep Emeraude (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep A simple Google search for "Ballyoughter, Gorey" turns up hundreds of references. Clearly a real, populated place, and as such, inherently notable. Yunshui (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep yes, it's certainly a real place in County Wexford, Ireland. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 30 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, unambiguous copyright violation [12][13]. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IHub[edit]

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

The company does not meet WP:ORG. No significant depth of coverage. Reads like an advert/promotion. Heywoodg 10:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Woodward Warder[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, and this guy could be notable or or he could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notspeedyanything. A quick glance doesn't make it look like he necessarily meets the GNG. I haven't looked through enough stuff that I would normally feel comfortable making a delete vote here, but regardless of any problems in the nom I think this afd should run its course. Kevin (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. A proper nomination respects the time of the editors being asked to participate at the AfD. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrote a bunch of stuff in the late 1800s which nobody really seemed to care about, and then got involved in a failed opera house project. The only real trace of notability (inclusion in a fairly eccentric college course) is faint indeed. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet GNG one way or another. While the Google Book hits seem promising at first, there's nothing there but one or two really, [ http://books.google.com/books?id=ckBYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA616&dq=%22George+Woodward+Warder%22&hl=en&ei=qyeCTuDUCsaftgerrYTZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=%22George%20Woodward%20Warder%22&f=falsereally short reviews] (that make fun of him, incidentally). Drmies (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment: Both the nomination and the two "speedy keep" comments are immaterial because they do not actually address why the article should be deleted or kept on its own merits. This leaves us with two "delete" opinions, which is not clear enough a consensus, hence the relisting. Sandstein 08:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collection of Research Papers (KC0131) on George Woodward Warder at http://www.umkc.edu/WHMCKC/Collections/IKC0131.HTM (five folders, State Historical Society of Missouri Research Center - Kansas City)
Books by George Woodward Warder available online:

Invisible Light (NY, Dillingham, 1900) http://books.google.com/books?id=-38AAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=
Cities of the Sun (NY, Dillingham, 1901) http://books.google.com/books?id=538AAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=
Stairway to the Stars (NY, 1903) http://books.google.com/books?id=TwIeAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=
The Universe a Vast Electric Organism (NY, Dillingham, 1903) http://books.google.com/books?id=3-hHAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=
Eden Dell (poems, 1878) http://books.google.com/books?id=3dA_AAAAYAAJ&dq=george%20woodward%20warder&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Utopian Dreams and Lotus Leaves (poems, 1885) http://books.google.com/books?id=F1QmAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22george+woodward+warder%22&lr=

Keep. I have just learnt that George Woodward Warder was a notable if unlucky figure in 19th Century Missouri, writing everything from strange cosmology to poetry, and practising law and (unfortunately for him) real estate investing. An extraordinary man who certainly deserves a place in WP, and a more detailed article too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting eccentric. Sources are enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Pivar[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, and this guy could be notable or or he could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:PROF. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)WP:N states, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" and the box on the right specifically mentions Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) (WP:PROF). So what is nominally a delete vote mentions no policy, and the guideline mentioned fails to consider that WP:GNG must also fail before notability fails, and even if notability fails, the remedy is not deletion but a merge of the reliable material. In summary, this is not a valid !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable for (inadvertent) involvement on NY Academy of Arts scandal and is written about in NY publications. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot be a speedy keep regardless of any problems in the original nom, because someone independent has advanced a delete vote. Kevin (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They might change their mind when they realise that the subject is quite notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as this. As a major player in the NY art scene and associate of Andy Warhol, the subject appears in thousands of books. This nomination states clearly that it is based only upon an antipathy for the author, not from any knowledge of the topic or particulars of the article. It should therefore be closed per WP:SK #2.5 "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". Warden (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (ec)The nominal delete !vote is not a valid !vote. As for the nomination, it makes no sense—being a sockpuppet makes no difference unless the editor is banned. This AfD should be speedily kept so that the nominator can make a speedy and proper re-nomination, then the editors that participate here will not need to each repeat the work that should have been done by the nominator in preparing this AfD. As Warden notes, the nominator may also realize that there is no need to spend more time on this article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point in closely a discussion, solely to reopen it? And for the record, the sockpuppets (and sockmaster) are all indef blocked. You're arguing over technicalities without any concern for the actual article, or understanding the context of the nomination. Get real. If the guy is indeed notable, then the article should be kept. If he's not, it should be deleted. This is not rocket science. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article can be G5'ed, there is no need for AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, then we don't want to keep the article, even if the topic is notable, sourced, etc. I've already responded to the other comments. Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- as Kevin points out, there has been a good-faith delete !vote. Speedy keep is therefore off the table. Reyk _YO! 00:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the edits by the banned user from the article. Whether the article is notable or not is an entirely different issue so the AfD should be allowed to run to completion. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do that? Now the history makes no sense at all, and it makes it look like I created the article! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This selective deletion is a violation of WP:Copyrights, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Please restore the deleted edits or G5 the entire history. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi. I have no opinion on the article or the G5 issues, but I saw the speedy deletion request and fixed the attribution. :) I wasn't going to remove the G5 request (but let somebody else work it out), but after following the AfD tag, I see that there are "keep" votes here, so this is not uncontested. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess It's hard to say how notable his later career is, but his art collecting and involvement with Warhol generated notoriety enough. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The keep vote says that his connection to Andy Warhol proves his notability; this is covered in exactly five words in the article. Hence, at best a WP:COATRACK for his later, non-notable fringe theories; at worst, this is a WP:ONEEVENT non-entity who had a minor connection to a more famous person. 86.176.222.119 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has good references about Pivar and his work, Pivar is mentioned in a mainstream American newspaper and a number of popular magazines. Clearly notable. 212.219.63.252 (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification of my original !vote. Not notable as a scientist. Possibly notable as an art collector, discussion should be about that. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a notable figure in the New York art world. Indeed, it's pretty obvious that his theories are related to his interest in 19th century academic art, and derive from that cultural context. A direct connection can be made between his promotion of the tradition of Charles Bell etc and his theories of morphology, however that would be OR. Paul B (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable in the art world. Yopienso (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 20:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1-up[edit]

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

Poorly written dicdef, tagged for OR since 2008. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* delete Yep, looks like a dictionary definition so fails as per WP:NOT Heywoodg 07:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept of an extra life is notable; while the current article is pretty bare-bones and focuses mainly on the term "1-UP", it could be expanded to be more general without losing the historical information that's already present. Powers ^T 18:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Poor writing is reparable. OR may be harder to avoid; what have other sources said about the concept of extra lives in video games? The only somewhat-reliable sources I've found so far are master's theses. Better sources have been difficult to find- especially since the term is also used in golf. §everal⇒|Times 18:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Health (gaming). Re-create per WP:SPLIT when applicable. Currently the article is OR without references, and unless someone finds broad coverage sources beyond definition entries, this doesn't pass WP:GNG. It's a real-life notable video gaming term/feature, so hoping for sources to make it Wikipedia-notable. However, impossible to google with 1UP.com in the way. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per H3llkn0ws. ★★★★ 17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to note that the article has nearly 150 links to it. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Transwiki to Wiktionary. This covers more than just Health as it talks about the derivation from the pinball games, however it does need references and that article may be the best alternative for mentioning the term. —Ost (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GALES[edit]

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

Notability of subject matter not sufficiently demonstrated, seems to be original research/self-promotional. Chenzw Talk 06:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* delete Notability not established. Heywoodg 07:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An new organization of 20 prep schools from various countries. Founded 2010, had their first event earlier this year, where several dozen of their students gathered to discuss global warming, resource inequity, etc. Found a single news item mentioning the conference. I would like to see it have a WP entry, if and when it becomes notable, but not until then. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I agree, if and when the organization really takes off, an article would be welcome. But, as it stands, there isn't enough coverage to justify keeping this one. Usual caveats apply, of course, as the organization can (and likely will) grow and become more notable over time. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I can't close this as delete because of the three new sources demonstrating WP:GNG. The editors !voting delete do not indicate they've reviewed the new sources and dispute them. I similarly cannot close keep because the delete !voters have infact commented here after the changes indicating the improvements have no swayed their opinion. I see no consensus for either side. v/r - T P 20:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community Exchange System[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to identify any significant coverage of this complementary currency network in independent reliable sources. Nothing has changed since the last deletion discussion. ^Bongo_matic 06:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm aware of sources establishing notability, though the generic term used makes them harder to find. I will work to include them in the article. Greenman (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could strike your "keep" opinion pending identification of sources. ^Bongo_matic 07:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Exchange System, also known as the Talent Exchange, may be unheard of in the West, but is well known in South Africa, especially Cape Town. I've added references from the Mail & Guardian and I know of an article in the Sunday Times, but I can't find this online. I am still seeking sources, though as with many African topics these aren't always easy to find online. Greenman (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This system has been specifically mentioned in Time Magazine, is the sole focus of at least two articles in the South Africa national press (and I'm aware of a third but cannot find it online), so it seems to meet notability guidelines, and has been (I think!) significantly improved since its initial nomination. Please be aware that this project is specifically active in Africa, so significant mentions in the local community press would not be found online. I've contacted the administrators to get hold of more references that they may be aware of, and am waiting for this. The first delete "vote" doesn't raise a point, while the second seems to have been addressed. Would the two users like to change their position? Greenman (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Article is about an online social credit plan. As Aristotle says, "(i)t is true indeed that these and many other things have been invented several times over in the course of ages, or rather times without number...." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote from Aristotle, but what's the relevance? :) Greenman (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That this plan is just another of many similar enterprises that have been going on for a long time. It may not be individually notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are many similar schemes, so the question is whether this one is notable. I've just been sent scanned copies of press articles by the CES administration, and will go through them to see which are useful. Included in them are articles from the Cape Times and the Times (different media companies), which together with the Mail & Guardian and Business Report/Independent Online reports would be significant coverage. It does appear that the CES is not particularly notable outside of South Africa, but in South Africa with that degree of national press coverage it certainly would be. I will go through the articles to see how significant the mentions are later tonight. Greenman (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Speedy delete in accordance with the G4 criteria. Why are we back here again after three months with nothing to indicate that the issues in the first discussion have been resolved? There remains a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cind., this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Greenman (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The G4 criteria calls for the speedy deletion of recreated pages that were previously deleted per a deletion discussion. (check) A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. (check) The issues in the previous discussion that resulted in deletion remain unaddressed. Please explain how the article does not meet the G4 criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 06:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has since had references added and is in the process of being improved. The previous deletion discussion had one comment and was hardly a discussion. The issue raised then was that there is no significant coverage about this system in reliable sources, and this is being contested. Greenman (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the references makes more than a passing reference to the subject. ^Bongo_matic 12:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading an old version of the entry perhaps? It's the entire focus of the Mail and Guardian article, and the Independent Online article. It's given a passing reference in Time and in the other M&G article, and in the Ashoka reference it's the reason Timothy Jenkin is listed as an Ashoka fellow. Greenman (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix up the article. It's a valid subject; and there are people interested in learning about it -- Wikipedia should carry it. Problem is there is too much information in the article outside of the references; so I'd shorten it, add more references, and perhaps add a picture or two.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 20:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whzan[edit]

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

Notabiliy is not established by third-party reliable sources Novangelis (talk) 05:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searches revealed no significant independent coverage. Seems promotional. Last of all, the subject cannot be positively identified. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* delete No news coverage, no significant third-party coverage. Heywoodg 07:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about an open, internet cloud based service for the connection and monitoring of remote and dynamic devices. With the online tools users can create applications share live data with communities. Well, isn't that specific? Content is exclusively promotional. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient 3rd party sources to establish notability; created by an SPA as probably promotional. Dialectric (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNews shows three results: two for other uses of the word, one to the company website. Not notable and WP is not a promotional tool. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whzan has linked to the NHS Florance System — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.160.190 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually "NHS Florence System", apparently. I appreciate the heads-up, as plus Whzan plus "NHS Florance System" does turn up hits. They are pretty much small mentions or side notes on blogs for NHS and similar sites, but at least they indicate that Whzan is not as bad a subject as I first thought. They could be the kernel of future notability, but still don't think it's there yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 20:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interface: a journal for and about social movements[edit]

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

This article is about a relatively new journal, that is claimed to be unique and one of only 4 journals "devoted to social movements". PROD was denied, but there are no independent sources (the external links given are either to the journal itself or to sources that are no necessarily reliable). Apparently not indexed in any major database. Some notable persons have published in the journal, but, of course, notability is not inherited. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the journal is notable. It is mentioned by numerous other sources; including the International Sociological Association (how can this be not reliable?). Despite its newness, it is one of the few journals in the field of social movement studies, and it is known in the field (as shown by the above mentions). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in a newsletter of the International Sociological Association. While this confirms that it exists (which is not in doubt anyway), it does not confer any notability at all. --Crusio (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. Some parts of ISA's website confer notability, and some - like the newsletter - don't? How so? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletters are often less stringently edited than othe things. In the present case, the link you refer to is an announcement about the journal by one of the people involved with it. --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's one way to look at this, sure. Or you could look at it the way I do: it is a mention in the top professional association that certainly does screen what appears in its newsletter. As such, I think that ISA newsletter confers a significant degree of notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you would think this, but that is not the way these things work. Newsletters are intended to inform members of anything that might be of interest. Any new journal in the field of interest would be mentioned in such a newsletter. The people making those newsletters are generally starved for copy and would probably ask someone connected with such a new journal to write something about it. This does absolutely not mean that the organization publishing the newsletter endorses the journal or even recommends its members to publish there. The only "screening" about what goes into a newsletter is a quick read-through and only if somebody would write crazy stuff would it be weeded out. This is why I don't think that an announcement in a newsletter amounts to much concerning notability. --Crusio (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment is inaccurate in this case. The International Sociological Association is a very substantial organisation (more details in its WP article), and its newsletter (translated into 6 languages other than English) reflects this. The editors are in no way starved of copy, nor does it mention every new journal related to sociology. In this case the article was solicited by the ISA's president, Michael Burawoy.--Laurence Cox (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:42. --Crusio (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but this doesn't address the question discussed above as to the significance of the ISA soliciting and publishing this article.--Laurence Cox (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no evidence that this was solicited, second, that it was solicited just confirms my remark about editors of newsletters continuously trawling for copy. If this newsletter had thought this journal so important, they would have written a review of it themselves. --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to a single review of a journal published in this newsletter? Till you do, I'd assume that soliciting such articles is the norm for ISA newsletter. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.It is inaccurate to claim that there are no independent sources (as noted above).

The journal does not claim to be "unique" but it does claim [disclosure: I am one of the editors; I believe this claim to be correct, after 20 years working in the field] to be distinguished by *not* being a pure academic research journal but rather a practitioner journal produced by and for engaged scholars *and* movement practitioners. In this respect the question of its notability is not simply a question of its unusual features *as academic journal* but also *as social movement publication*, hence the inclusion of a list of notable activists and intellectuals who have published in it (and a link to its debate with David Harvey, also notable.--Laurence Cox (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note also that WikiProject Sociology rates this article as of mid-importance.--Laurence Cox (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mid" importance parameter was added by the article creator and, in any case, has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. As for the "inaccurate" claim, I still have to see independent reliable sources. I don't think that "not being a pure academic research journal" is enough of a claim of uniqueness to meet WP:NJournals#3. As explained in the nom, the fact that notable people have published in the journal is irrelevant, as notability is not inherited. --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're talking at cross-purposes. My point is rather that the Interface entry should not simply be evaluated by the criteria for academic journals, as it is programmatically not simply an academic journal.--Laurence Cox (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of Wikipedia:Notability (magazines). Perhaps Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Academic_and_technical_books would be of some use? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of specific guidelines, WP:GNG applies. This obviously does not meet that. --Crusio (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful argument. Let me reply, countering, that "this obviously does meet that." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 21:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moogwrench (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the well-articulated arguments of Piotrus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three references are provided in the article: an announcement/description of the journal by a member of the journal's collective; another member's description of the journal and invitation to join it; and a professor's website, noting that an article of his had been debated in the journal, and providing links to same. While these may be useful sources of information about the subject, they are not useful for establishing notability, which requires reliable sources, in the WP sense of providing secondary, independent coverage. GScholar search returns only 94 hits, and virtually all of them to this journal itself, or mirrors; there appear to be only a scant, few references to it within other journal articles. GNews returns a solitary hit, to the journal's own website. GEverything returns links to the journal; announcements of the journal's founding and new issues; calls for papers; people's CV's who've written for or edited the journal. Nothing WP:RS that I could see. And given that it was founded only two years ago, notability can hardly be assumed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 20:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Lieppman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Keith Lieppman

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

Non-notable baseball executive. He was never a "commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager" in the majors, meaning he fails WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASE/N, note 4. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 05:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, WP:BASE/N doesn't override WP:GNG. WP:BASE/N is a shortcut to notability, not an additional requirement on top of WP:GNG. — NY-13021 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hmm, after a Google search, I couldn't find any significant coverage articles about the subject -- all I found are statistics and some mirror sites. As such, the article fails WP:GNG. I had problems determining if the article complies with WP:BASE/N or not. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He wasn't even mentioned in Moneyball. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was mentioned in the acknowledgments: "Keith Lieppman and Ted Polakowski, who must have wondered why I so longed to pester their minor league players, instead helped me to do it." — NY-13021 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, he is mentioned in the acknowledgments. However, he isn't mentioned once in the text of the book itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search shows several dozen interviews of this guy, and a Google News search yields 5 current articles and almost 800 hits in the archives. Unless WP:BASE/N now overrides WP:GNG, this seems like a case of sources being missing from the Wiki page rather than being non-existent. NY-13021 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:GOOGLEHITS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. I've also read WP:AFD, item D, which is a step a lot of people around here seem to be skipping before making these nominations. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted." – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and you expect us to believe you read through all 792 Google News hits and decided none were sufficient to meet WP:GNG? — NY-13021 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ROUTINE coverage only. "Minor league first- and third baseman and manager, and Major League farm system official." Exactly. I imagine that he's a perfectly nice fellow, but why the need for an encyclopedia entry? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Routine coverage? The first page of a Google search yields three different interviews specifically of Lieppman on BaseballProspectus.com and Scout.com, two of the biggest sports sites on the internet. Page two shows coverage in the Washington Times and San Francisco Chronicle. Page three has links to CSN Chicago and CSN Bay Area detailing an award won by Lieppman in 2009 for lifetime achievement. Then, clicking on the Google News Archive link, I get 792 results, for a guy whose baseball career started 25 years before the internet was in wide use. This guy has received a lot more than "routine coverage". — NY-13021 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, why the need for an encyclopedia entry? The GNews hits do seem to follow a pattern, don't they?... "And now for the inside scoop on the A's minor league prospects, let's talk to one of their execs." I realize we disagree on this point, but I don't see how such stories do much to establish his notability, which is WP:NOTINHERITED from his minor leaguers. And please don't throw the sheer number of Google hits into the equation--sports in general and baseball in particular generate more ephemeral, routine notices than the weather. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "need for an encyclopedia entry" isn't the issue; his eligibility is the issue — and, per WP:GNG, he seems to be eligible. Being a subject-matter expert, such as Lieppman being quoted dozens of times per year about baseball players, isn't the same thing as "inheriting" notability. — NY-13021 (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure he is quoted dozens of times per year about baseball players who work for his employer. And I imagine that McDonalds employs someone who fields questions about their burgers, and that this person finds their way into x number of stories as a result. I don't consider that such stories are worth much as RS to justify a WP article on the McDonalds spokesman, either. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incorrect comparison. Lieppman isn't being quoted as a spokesman; he's quoted as a subject-matter expert. But even if we entertain your comparison, if this hypothetical McDonald's spokesman were to win a national award that resulted in national media coverage of the spokesman himself, just as Lieppman won an MLB award that was covered by the major outlets mentioned above, then that would pass WP:GNG, wouldn't it? Maybe it's in the eyes of the beholder, but articles like this, this, and this seem more than routine to me. — NY-13021 (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the 1st article. However, the 2nd is published by Minor League Baseball, and thus isn't really independent coverage. And the 3rd is a blog; it may be the type of blog that can be considered a reliable source, but even if it is, I would not be comfortable keeping on the basis of a single article plus a short blog post. If there are a few more like the first however, I think keeping would be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 20:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Lipe[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Never had any real involvement in the major leagues. He did lead two teams to league championship victories in the minors, however. Alex (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If this guy is non-notable, why did you create the page just 2 months ago? Would you mind explaining that? I'm not looking to start any battles here, but I bet this is the 20th time I've seen you do this in recent months (i.e., nominate one of your own pages for deletion). NY-13021 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this yesterday, but this guy also has a baseball card in the most famous baseball card set of all time (1909–1911 T-206). Between that, the consecutive-games record he once held, and his years as a manager, I'd bet he passes WP:GNG, even if, perhaps, finding specific citations is difficult. — NY-13021 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, I read the entry and looked up on Google. The purely WP:RS entries are in line with the clearly unnotable description in the WP article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This guy's baseball career ended some 85 years before the internet was in wide use, so Google can't be expected to help much. A search of Google News and Google Books, however, yields plenty of links. I only voted Weak Keep above, but it just seems hard for me to believe that if this guy was considered one of the 500 most notable people in baseball from 1909–1911, as suggested by his inclusion in the T-206 baseball card set, that he didn't get sufficient coverage back then to warrant a Wiki entry. — NY-13021 (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete by CSD A7 and stop wasting our time. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Time." That's cute. You guys act as if it is an obligation to pay attention and waste your "time" by replying. Alex (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you act as if the most basic Wiki policies don't apply to you. Why is it so hard for you to understand that a page should not be created if you haven't confirmed notability in advance? You're the Wiki equivalent of a person who shoots first and aims later. — NY-13021 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is different according to each individual's viewpoint. Alex (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Are you deliberately trolling now? If that's how Wiki worked, then it wouldn't be Articles for Deletion, it would be Articles for Creation. Why would Wiki want pages created and then deleted? While WP:GNG has some room for debate, it clearly requires sources to establish notability, yet you keep creating new pages with zero sources and then posting them in AfD. — NY-13021 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep - The fact he was a one-time holder of the consecutive-games-played record in professional baseball is a plus in his favor, as well as the fact he won league championships as a manager. The lack of references is concerning, though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm somewhat on the fence, but the consecutive games streak, which also gets a paragraph in a couple of Spalding Guides, and the age, which makes finding coverage that likely existed difficult, pushes me towards keep. Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York Giants opponents[edit]

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

WP:NOTSTATS, contested PROD. I am also nominating the following related pages:

Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really don't understand the issue. I have often looked at each one of these pages and found them to be informative and easy to understand. That is why I endeavored to make one for the New York Giants. I feel that these tables help to put a teams history with another team in historical perspective and I do not find that the data contained in the table is meaningless or confusing. - Bigblue535658 (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#STATS I was going to nominate them for AFD as soon as I got home Secret ^account 04:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why do all of the "Percentage" or "Percent" columns have decimal numbers in them instead of actual percentages? - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 05:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have no real opinion either way, but it is worth noting that Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent has both survived an AfD and been promoted to Featured List status.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Percentages are in decimal form because that is standard practice for standings for all major sports leagues. Look at NFL standings at NFL.com for example, winning percentage is in decimal form. - Bigblue535658 (talk) 9:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Just as an example, without these pages where else are you supposed to be able to see what the Washington Redskins record is against the Denver Broncos? - Bigblue535658 (talk) 9:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly on the team's website? Or the NFL's? Or even (horrors) in a book. Just because WP:ITSUSEFUL doesn't mean it should be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that most information, if not all, on this website doesn't need to be on it. - Bigblue535658 (talk) 9:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete data could be useful on the team article, but not necessarily as its own page. It looks to me like it would be clumsy and cumbersome to keep updated, even for just NFL teams.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. - WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Including a table on the team's page noting, say, their best 5/worst 5 win-loss records against opponents could add value to the article, IMHO. Having entire pages on the subject for each team, though, is not something Wikipedia needs. (And while one soccer team's page on the subject might well be an FL, the fact WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean these (and possibly even it) shouldn't be deleted.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I concede that this is somewhat unnecessary as it's own page. I would put it on the Giants page directly however. - Bigblue535658 (talk) 1:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I would say all of these tables should be transferred to their corresponding team pages. With the exception of the Washington Redskins page. While some of the tables are organized by winning percentage or alphabetical order the Redskins page is organized by neither. - Bigblue535658 (talk) 1:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete all – I'm a supporter of lists in general, but I think this series is too far into WP:NOT#STATS territory. I'm also not convinced that moving the tables into the teams' articles is a good solution. I haven't looked at all of the team pages in question, but the Giants article has a lot of tables already (perhaps too many). Not sure another one would be in the best interests of that page. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Indiscriminate lists, best treated in team articles. Blueboy 96 19:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or merge all (if, for the sake of keeping everything, you want to merge all of them into the team articles). Otherwise, none of these lists are acceptable as stand-alone lists in the slightest. –MuZemike 19:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or merge all Could be some interesting information for the history pages of each team, but as a stand-alone article, these just don't work.--Giants27(T|C) 01:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:NOTSTATS. Opponents are already covered in encyclopedic fashion in the main article. Dzlife (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Lucas[edit]

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

I cannot find any reliable third party sources for an article on Bryn Lucas - "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Pesky (talk …stalk!) 03:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources (WP:GNG). Fails WP:CREATIVE. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentioned in a couple of newspaper articles but does not pass WP:ARTIST. Heywoodg 08:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While sources can be found to confirm his acting roles, his brief career fails WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two supporting roles in straight-to-video movies and a guest spot on a TV show do not equal WP:NACTOR notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O Broadcasting System[edit]

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

Previously Proded and deleted. Previous prod reason was "Unreferenced Broadcast TV network of dubious notability." Article re-created with roughly the same content as before. Article was previously deleted after the prod 2 days ago and was just re-created today. Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Delete. NN, etc. → ROUX ₪ 23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I don't understand this situation. This TV station is existed; people can check their official website to find out. We cannot just simply erase the existing tv network because some people in the community are lazy on researching some info. Please check more before going any further. → ilwoo99 ilwoo99 23:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is your first AfD, I'll lay some policies out
  - Wikipedia:Notability - This defines what kind of articles we will accept in en Wikipedia
  - WP:EXISTS - This is a essay concerning the common response "It Exists" for a rationale to keep
  - WP:AGF - It is policy to be civil and assume good faith on the editors and not make accusations of "some people in the community are lazy on researching some info".
  - WP:BURDEN - It's the responsibility of the editor who adds or wants to keep content in question to demonstrate the reasons for adding it. You added the same unsourced and uncited text that was there previously.
  - WP:INDEPENDENT - While the link to the network's official page is useful in a "Getting More Info" way, it is not independent so we cannot accept it for claims of notability.
  - And Finally WP:BEFORE - A reccomended guideline that editors perform a series of checks to make sure it's reasonable that the article cannot be saved. For your claims that I didn't do it, I'll do one right now.
    1. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, proposed deletion or speedy keep.
      - Article could possibly be notable enough, but as it was re-created after a deletion from expired proposed deletion it is my understanding we are to treat this like an opposed prod. There is no reason for a speedy keep.
    2. If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See "Sourcing search" below)
      - Google search - Still contains several wikipedia scrapers
      - Google Books search]
      - Google News search - Of note it does contain 1 Press release style article about the network going live 4 years ago.
    3. Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
      - Article was recently created and there is no evidence of vandalism.
    4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
      - Article's Talk page doesn't exisist
    5. Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
      - No substantial links. Mostly new article indexers.
    6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles.
      - I added the inter language link, the KO article is primarily unsourced except for 3 events in the network's history. Therefore there's not a lot we could do to save it.
- And therefore, that is why I think the article should be deleted. Hasteur (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These sources cited in the Korean Wikipedia article appear to be independent and reliable, and amount to significant coverage: [14][15][16]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So I understand, you're voting keep because 3 events in the station's history (about 1/50th of the total article content) is cited in the Korean version? Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, because there is significant coverage of the station in multiple independent reliable sources, per the general notability guideline. I would add that the Korea Times source that you noted above, but neglected to link, also contributes to notability. It is credited to a staff reporter, and I don't see what makes it "press release style". It is written in precisely the style that I would expect an article in an independent media outlet about the opening of a TV station to be be written. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger and per WP:BROADCAST.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~How does this meet WP:ORG? No substantial depth of coverage, Wikipedia is not a directory. Heywoodg 08:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)~~ After reading WP:BROADCAST, it does appear to meet the notability criteria Heywoodg 08:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources in the article, those cited above by user:Phil Bridger, and that per these sources, the topic's notability appears to pass WP:BROADCAST. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These sources were added to the article:

(Korean.) (August 1, 2011.) "Kyung-TV OBS, 1 from Seoul to start broadcasting globally." Joinsmsn.com. Accessed September 2011.
(Korean.) (March 21, 2011.) "Seoulseo see Kyung-TV ... KCC, offshore permit retransmission." Asia Economy. Accessed September 2011.
(Korean.) (May 20, 2010.) "Times-OBS Kyung-business agreement." Kyung-Times. Accessed September 2011.

Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Log-linear modeling (economics)[edit]

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

Failure to establish notability, gross errors (calling transcendental Cobb-Douglas production function a polynomial), one reference without in-line citations and of dubious quality and relevance. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't say it's not notable, but it is original research, based as it is on one article. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:12, 30 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. v/r - T P 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Latshaw[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. He managed for many seasons, but rarely ever managed a full season and never won a league championship. His playing career, though long, does not appear notable. Despite playing for a basketball team, he does not appear to pass WP:NBASKETBALL, as the "American Basketball League" is not listed as one the of "notable" leagues. Alex (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, for all these pages of non-notable individuals you created, you can just nominate them for speedy deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I know if they're non-notable if I don't pass them through the AfD filter? Just because I think they're non-notable doesn't mean consensus thinks they're non-notable. Alex (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the article seems to assert that the subject is notable, it doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. Whether that assertion is correct or not is a question for AFD, which is why we're here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would if he is the only major author to the page. It could be deleted under G7 as author request. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of obvious notability. If there were sources that talk about this individual specifically, there might be a better case for notability here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For a few reasons.

I am not sure the American Basketball League does not fall under the "similar major professional sports league" clause within criterion 1 of WP:NBASKETBALL
I am not comfortable asserting that players who played significant numbers of games in top minor leagues like the AA before expansion, and particularly before their teams became Major League affiliates, are not notable. I am not sure how to find the old coverage on line, but the fact that this player is mentioned in a number of books published post 1990 [17] makes me think it is very likely he received significant coverage during his playing/managing days, even if the book mentions in the Google Book search may not be enough on their own to prove notability. Rlendog (talk) 23:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reasons mentioned by Rlendog in the preceding comment. Also, this is yet another page created by Alex being nominated for deletion by none other than Alex. What gives? Since when is the AfD process an acceptable substitute for making a proper analysis of notability before a user creates an article in the first place? NY-13021 (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying keep because you don't like the fact that I nominated a guy that I created the article for? If so, that is not a valid reason to keep it and is borderline WP:POINTy. But the reason I often nominate guys I wrote articles for is because when I'm writing them, I think of them as article worthy...but often months on I review their articles (often by happenstance) and think "what was I thinking?" and AfD it. Alex (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I voted Keep because of the second sentence in Item #2 in Rlendog's comment above. That said, I bet you've AfD'd at least 20 pages in recent months that you originally created. I'd respectfully suggest that if you have such trouble understanding who and what passes or fails WP:GNG and/or WP:BASE/N, then maybe you should take a time out from creating pages and/or making AfD nominations. This habit of creating pages and then running them through AfD is both lame and counter to Wiki policy. — NY-13021 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna happen. I love the condescending tone so many Wikipedia users have. Alex (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It wasn't meant to be condescending; it was meant as a good-faith suggestion. I'm astonished your little habit of creating pages and then running them through AfD hasn't drawn scrutiny from higher-ups. A first-day user of Wikipedia knows that the burden is on a page's creator to establish notability and to be able to defend an AfD rather than advocate for an AfD. For whatever reason, you seem to see AfD as your little sandbox, and it's both odd and contrary to Wiki policy. — NY-13021 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of these AFDs as well. One AFD was an article he created in late July. Don't make the article if you don't think it's notable. Please stop creating this needless busy-work. Look at Jesús Tiamo, created recently. No reliable sources to establish notability at all. Don't bring this to AFD. It needs reliable sources, and **you** should find them, not us. "Not gonna happen." Well that's just swell. We're not going to do your job forever, especially with a dismissive attitude like that. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? This has been going on for over a year now. You were asked to stop repeatedly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Novosel. We're requesting it again. Stop. I've had enough of this. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 14:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why people get so worked up over this. You guys tell me to take a break, but you're the ones getting so upset over it. Chillax. By the way, Taimo is a inherently notable as bullpen catchers are considered coaches. You lose. `Alex (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really all about 'winning' or 'losing' to you? I'll 'chillax' once you stop creating articles that you know you're going to take to AFD a month later. Even beginners at Wikipedia:Your first article know not to do this. It specifically says, "Gather references both to use as source(s) of the information you will include and also to demonstrate notability of your article's subject matter." You completely fail to do this on the articles you bring to AFD because you expect us to do your work every single time. We're upset because you've deliberately done this almost a hundred times over the past year. Don't create an article unless you can prove that it passes WP:BASE/N or cite reliable sources for WP:GNG. Why is that such a daunting request? "I could. But I'm not going to." What was the point in creating Perry Lipe in July if you know that the subject was a non-notable minor leaguer? If you can't find the sources to back up claims of notability, please don't create the article! Your repeated dismissive attitude on this simple request shows that this will likely require administrative intervention. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Make articles, not wikidrama." - Vodello userpage. Wikidrama: You're making it. Alex (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Why is it so hard for people to admit they're wrong? Please point to a Wiki policy that says creating pages and then running them through AfD is acceptable. The creator of a page is expected to be able to defend an AfD, not turn around and request an AfD. Beyond that, where did you get the crazy idea that "bullpen catchers are considered coaches"? A bullpen catcher is considered support staff. MLB teams have a manager and a maximum of six coaches. The bullpen coach is a coach; the bullpen catcher is not. — NY-13021 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been established that bullpen catchers are coaches through the six trillion AfDs where people said "keep" because they're coaches. Derp. Alex (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, if a bunch of people in an AfD thread decide that 2+2=5, that doesn't become gospel. As I explained in plain language just one comment ago, a bullpen catcher is not a coach. I guarantee you can't find a single MLB-related citation to support such a claim, because none exist (unless you believe some AfD threads override MLB's rules). — NY-13021 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Side mentions. Don't see anything RS. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's save a lot of time in the future Buck Elliott and Ray Malgradi. These two new example articles fail WP:BASEBALL/N, as do a lot of others he creates, and there is nothing presented through reliable sources or even an unsourced statement that asserts notability. These articles will inevitably be brought here within the month even though he just recently created them. Instead of bringing these to AFD, are there any criteria for speedy deletion to just get rid of them without discussion? He's against 'wikidrama' and wants us to make wikiarticles, and we can spend our time making the articles instead of spending hours arguing about his, so..? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 20:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing and what really is the crux of all this. Why does it bother (any of) you so much? You aren't spending hours arguing over anything, at most you're spending five minutes creating a response. It doesn't involve a lot of time and a lot of energy, yet you're clearly letting this raise your blood pressure to unhealthy levels. I mean, just ignore them AfDs. Is that so hard? No one is asking you to inject your snark into each of them as you do. It's really quite saddening that Wikipedia means so much to you and that your life is perhaps so devoid of any other entertainment that you feel the need to overreact to minutiae such as this. Perhaps you should pick up a hobby. Start off slow, a life away from the computer screen takes getting used to. I hear cross-stitching is nice. Alex (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd all rather spend 0 minutes. That's what CSD and prods are for. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The clause "or a similar major professional sports league" within the above cited WP:NBASKETBALL seems intended for cases such as this; it is likely that this league was the most prominent at the time prior to the creation of the NBA, as the original ABL was the first attempt to create a professional basketball league. Kansan (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weakk keep - the ABL was a professional sports league at the time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Lento[edit]

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

Fails notability and verifiability requirements. The references listed in the article don't even mention this musical style (while being unreliable anyway), with the exception of a BBC.co.uk article where this style is given only a passing mention: 'But on a trip to Italy, [Hurts] discovered "disco-lento" (slow disco)'. Google and Google Books search do not produce any results. Quibik (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This review in the Guardian suggests that disco-lento is a genre made up by Hurts: "Peculiar as it sounds, cosmic disco existed, which doesn't seem to be something you can say about disco lento. Every internet reference to it appeared around the same time Hurts began to get attention. Some of the artists they cite are real...but none of them described their music as lento. Others don't check out at all." Moswento (talk | contribs) 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched Google News and Google Books too, but I couldn't find anything that would count as a reliable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 30 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BIMx[edit]

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

Recently released software with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Please note that the article was written by a Graphisoft employee [18]. In the history of the article, the user stated, "This software suite has been just recently released, therefore you could not find significant coverage yet." which only supports the argument for deletion. Odie5533 (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JJózsef is not a Graphisoft employee, as the cited page confirms. Not stating that Odie5533 deliberately lies, just does not have enough time to read web pages carefully. Anyway I have never hidden my affiliations so I do not know what was the point in citing this false information here. I think the real issue is whether the software has significant coverage in reliable sources or not. Well, anyone who takes the time to read through an article before marking it for deletion would assess the coverage of this piece of software using its old name too (as it is mentioned in the article: BIMx#History)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Thank you for taking your time: JJózsef (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Virtual Building Explorer or vice versa. We don't have articles on the same topic. This is an interation of the same software but renamed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 30 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 - T P 13:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard (album)[edit]

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

Unreleased album/not notable Does not meet WP:NALBUMS --ChristianandJericho 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon. Per WP:NALBUMS: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." Here we have no confirmed release date and no definite track list. JohnCD (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 19:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already, textbook WP:TOOSOON. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:56, 30 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otto von Fieandt[edit]

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

A7 speedy was declined. The article contains no evidence of notability. Of the two references, one doesn't work and the other also shows no evidence of notability. His promotion to Colonel appears to be his most noteworthy accomplishment, and that alone is not enough for an article. Powers ^T 01:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not even vaguely meeting WP:SOLDIER notability guidelines. Mangoe (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google books has a ton of information about Fieandt, including a whole section of a book, significant involvement in the war against the French, and even a poem named after him. Clearly meets WP:BIO Secret ^account 02:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Runeberg wrote one of the poems in The Tales of Ensign Stål about Fieandt almost automatically makes him ultra-notable (this may be difficult to understand if you are unaware of the position of this writer and this work in Swedish and, in particular, in Finnish culture, but it's a bit like if Coleridge or Byron or Tennyson had written one of their most popular poems about someone). Oh, and Fieandt has a four-page entry in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon. Somebody should consider writing a Wikipedia article about him. --Hegvald (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four pages in a national dictionary of biography is quite enough to prove notability. Moreover, from the Swedish and Finnish WP entries he appears to me to pass WP:SOLDIER (commanded a significant body of troops in battle, played significant part in prominent military event) and the Runeberg poem is good evidence of notability in his lifetime (once notable, always notable). --AJHingston (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added what I could using English sources. Unfortunately I cannot read Swedish. Mangoe (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – he's the subject of a poem in one of the defining works of Swedish (as in the language) and Finnish (as in the country) literature. /Julle (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. /Julle (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well noted in literature. --hydrox (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a high ranking Colonel, well noted in poems and the article has many citations.Vought109 (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO. Need more articles about people from Scandinavia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 20:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schatzi[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Speedy declined. No indications that the band meets any of the criteria of WP:BAND. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insert in paper shredder. This is not considered notable, not even by a longshot. Also, a Facebook link? Really? There is no way this meets Notability. James1011R (talk, contribs - Visit The Forge) - That's ridiculous. It's not even funny. 21:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak k~~Keep. It's evident that the creator of this article doesn't yet have a good grasp of how to prove notability on Wikipedia, but some gNews searches reveal that this band did receive at least a modicum of press and critical attention,[19][20][21][22][23] and they did have an album released on Mammoth Records. For example, here's a couple of notices from CMJ New Music Monthly[24][25], a short item in Billboard [26], and a warm review in The Post and Courier.[27] Looks like there may be more out there behind pay walls. Here's their AllMusic page for further info.[28] --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note: added link to short Billboard article--Arxiloxos (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved !vote to keep, see comments below.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7 -- no statement to assert notability. Google searches revealed no reliable sources explicitedly about the subject in question (fails WP:GNG). Google News searches revealed nothing about the band. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the sources I cited above (some found via Google Books)?--Arxiloxos (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've now edited the article to include information and sources from CMJ New Music Monthly and Report, Billboard, The Austin Chronicle, and The Post and Courier. In addition, GNews indicates that, behind pay walls, there's reviews or coverage of this band in The New York Post, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Salt Lake Tribune, The Sun News, and Austin American-Statesman. This coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1. The band had two releases on Mammoth Records and so appears to pass WP:BAND #5 as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:19, 30 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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Germany 2003[edit]

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

also nominating:

here we go again, another sprawling series of fighting results with no evidence of meeting WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All WP:EVENT reads "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." These events determine the champions and rankings for the contenders of K-1. Therefore these results of these events have significant lasting effects and thus meet the criteria for WP:EVENT.--Ryan.germany (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a new interest in kickboxing Ryan? These events do not determine champions or top rankings, they are qualifying events for other events. Many of the participants are non notable. Where is the significant enduring coverage to prove they meet WP:EVENT? LibStar (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These are qualifying events, at best. They determined no champions and the articles have no independent sources. For example, the French tournament winner qualified for a tournament in Paris where the winner would qualify for another event where the winners qualified for the championship tournament. That's not exactly determining the K-1 champion. I disagree that these pass WP:EVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per lack of significant coverage by independent sources. These are run-of-the-mill competitions.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree with Astudent's research and assessment. Papaursa (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Had difficulty finding anything useful for the individual events. "K-1 kickboxing 2003" gets some GNews hits, typically about this-or-that washed-up boxer or NFL player who's giving kickboxing a shot, but not anything of note concerning these particular events, that I could find. The WP articles just link to the company website, except for the German event, where there is a solitary link to a kickboxing forum where someone's asking for results--so perhaps I'm not the only one who's had trouble finding even WP:ROUTINE coverage, much less something reliable. If author(s) could provide anything WP:RS, that would be helpful. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still waiting for the one keep !voter to supply sources 12 days after he claimed notability. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Vodka[edit]

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

Not notable, No significant notability asserted. No external refs. Even the awards are only referenced by the award giving organisation. Very promotional and probably advert Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The one ref given is lacking detail and questionable. Text sounds self-descriptive/promotional. Except for this gem in the criticism section: "Its current market is limited to women and effeminate men." North8000 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [29], [30], [31], and [32]. SL93 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - also per [33], [34], [35], and [36]. clear indication of notability for product.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable vodka, though three of the sources linked by SL93 are questionable (adweek is borderline reliable source, many press releases, a catalog in Wine Magazine definally not a reliable source, and the last source is a want list, trivial source), other sources such as the SFGate source and this, among other makes it meet wikipedia guidelines. Secret ^account 04:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to United Breweries Group. The subject's notability is borderline because the references (I've personally never heard of the websites above, but again who's to say I'm well-informed). I can hardly see the page be expanded, so why not merge and make another page fuller? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 07:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Secret. /Julle (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Secret about the sources identified as dubious, but disagree about the SFGate and moodiereport.com sources. They both read like press releases to me, barely distinguishable from the pure ad copy that is this article. Oh, and for folks who might think that this bit from the SFGate piece means anything, notability-wise: "Just this month, the Mission District's Luna Park restaurant won a statewide contest with its Pinky-infused drink, the Vespa," have a look at a different puff piece from moodiereport, where you'll discover that this contest was in fact sponsored by the vodka company. Notability is not evidenced for this clear violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cheers magazine covers it. "March 1, 2006... PINKY VODKA uses a dozen botanicals including violets, rose petals and wild strawberries, for a versatile, "pink" taste, according to importer Liquidity Brands. Launched in Los Angeles, Calif. last month, the elegantly packaged, pink-colored".. you have to pay to read the rest of it. A lot of Google news results showing it exist, and its certainly a real thing. Not sure if any of those awards are notable or not. Dream Focus 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well, there is a giant sub-industry within the travel and luxury goods sector of physical and purely electronic magazines, newsletters, "reports", etc. where all or much of their content is straight or lightly warmed over press releases. Whether it is done in exchange for direct payments, for advertising, or just to bulk out their offering, it does result in a lot of copies of the same or somewhat tweaked press releases popping up on Google, but, really, does it matter at all to a subject's notability if you can point to 100 copies of a press release on Google? And you are right to question the awards. Let's have a look at them:

2009 Gold Medal - Beverage Testing Institute

This "institute" is a marketing service company that sells spirits producers and marketers the opportunity to be rated on the argument that they "obtain valuable marketing tools by participating in our reviews." This service is provided in exchange for $200 plus two bottles of the product. Evidently, the Pinky people ponied up an extra $200 to have a picture of the bottle included.

2009 Gold Medal - Frontier Magazine Buyers' Forum Award

An industry magazine holds a dinner for (presumably) its advertisers and hands out awards.

2009 Medal Winner, Packaging Design - San Francisco World Spirits Competition

2009 Medal Winner - San Francisco World Spirits Competition

Evidently a professional enterprise, although you'd have to email them to find out the ~~product placement fee~~ entrance fee. Four categories of medals: double gold, gold, silver, bronze. Pinky only managed bronze in both categories, but that's still good, right? Well, actually, it looks as though all or almost all entrants were given a prize. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King. The given sources do not establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lich King[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to one of the Warcraft games as it was before - non notable band with no reliable sources that I can find [37] --Deadly∀ssassin 11:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. There is some coverage of this group and they might possibly fulfill the WP:BAND parameters. I did find this interview from Nocturnal Cult webzine (a thrashmetal webzine), a sputnik music.com album review here and a 2010 review at spurious (Wikipedia-blacklisted) website. (In the course of my research have also come across Diamond Plate, a related band's article which has less coverage and seems less notable.) Shearonink (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if found to be notable enough. I don't believe the band should have ever taken over Lich King, rather Lich King should be redirected back to the WoW expansion, and a sentence at the top should read something like "This article is about the World of Warcraft expansion. For the American trash metal band, see Lich King_(Band)", or something along those lines. I'm not sure if that's the approriate way to go, but that's just a suggestion. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 05:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Lich King (band) and Redirect original page back to its original target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and create a redirect fof WoW. Band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, sputnix review is user submitted, interview is band talking about themselves and is not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayodhya Prasad Gupta 'Kumud'[edit]

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

Certainly looks arguably notable, but I can't find anything but Wikimirrors about this author. Perhaps I'm struggling with language and/or transliteration issues, additional sources welcomed. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unable to find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:58, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Laotian coup d'état conspiracy allegation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2007 Laotian coup d'état conspiracy allegation

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

So it would appear that the accusations were unsubstantiated, and therefore should be considered false, in line with the presumption of innocence. I do not think false allegations about a crime, which have had no long lasting effects, have a place on Wikipedia. See WP:CRIME and WP:NOTSCANDAL. As such, I think deletion may be in order. Note that I created this article, and I am now proposing its deletion. Int21h (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep true or false, these allegations are now part of US and Laotian history and should be memorialized by this article. The whole affair harmed many people who may have been Innocent all along. History facts should not be made to disappear from WP when they become inconvenient. Hmains (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any relevant facts can be merged into the History of Laos article. Wikipedia is not a place to "memorialise the wrongfully harmed innocent", it's an encyclopedia; the facts aren't "inconvienent", they're simply not worthy of a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People were arrested; there were court proceedings; this is well-sourced. This is a notable incident that deserves separate article. Biophys (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, given the RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a notable controversy, as plenty of reliable coverage has accumulated over the past four years. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citywire[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find evidence of notability, other than the one secondary citation in the article, which is a brief newspaper mention of Reuters buying a stake, half given over to quotes from the company (non-independent). --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) I've added a 3rd party reference to the article (from the point when Reuters bought a stake in this company). They play a significant role in financial journalism / analysis in the UK. Given their field, a Google News search obviously brings up a lot of news stories published on their own site, but excluding their own domain shows significant reporting of their analytics carried into other journals. AllyD (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further link added from Independent article ("...has made a name for itself with a fund performance analysis method...") See also this Daily Telegraph article: "... has made a name for itself by exposing the secret share deals of some of Britain's best-known investors". And a BBC News search shows a significant number of times Citywire staff are providing analytic views there. Also this (less notable) source describing its "pre-eminent position in the market for its unique combination of journalistic experience, regulated financial advice and proprietary data". AllyD (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic notability is established per these reliable sources [38], [39], [40]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and The Telegraph both cover a single event back in 2001, where Reuters (a notable company) bought 25% of Citywire. The Independent source is only a passing mention. It uses a quote from the Citywire managing director, the article isn't about Citywire. There isn't a significant amount of coverage to meet the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I pointed out last time this came up, the Financial Times use Citywire as a source; that's as much of a notable third-party reference as I can think of. --CetreCetoen (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the examples given by several editors above persuasive that this service is regarded by the relevant segment of the world as being notable , and that therefore we should do so also. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr The West Wind[edit]

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

This is a non-notable novel self-published only a few days ago. A search of relevant databases does not return any reviews or criticism. LadyofShalott 00:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as described; I also note that the article makes no claims of notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crashes and burns on WP:NBOOK. We should have some sort of criteria excluding titles published through Createspace, just to save time. On the positive side, the wall o' plot means I now have no need to buy the book, since virtually its entire content seems to have been reproduced here... Yunshui (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability and doesn't come up with any results on google. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Carrite and DGG make nice arguments, but he does actually meet WP:GNG per Northamerica1000's sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Craig[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Craig is a political candidate who has not held office. Mattlore (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does that justify a deletion? He has a very high chance of winning the Rodney seat polling at least 10% ahead of the National candidate. He and his party have a very good chance of getting a seat this election. Luke96241 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN; also fails more generally WP:NOTE. Self-reported polling does make for a verifiable "very high chance". The reported polling is against the sitting MP who will not actually stand in Rodney this year -- the National candidate for Rodney is Mark Mitchell, which tars the whole claim, making it seem more puff that fact. While the political party Conservative Party of New Zealand is sufficiently noteworthy, Colin Craig is not shown to be by the article as it stands. Ridcully Jack (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if the constituency doesn't even know Smith isn't standing, what makes you think that they would automatically vote for a nobody? Luke96241 (talk) 10:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the article reads as if Colin Craig doesn't know who his main opponent is - but mostly my point is that self-reported high polling is not verifiable in itself. I would support merging information about Colin Craig into the party page. Ridcully Jack (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke96241, WP is for what has happened rather than what may happen. If Colin Craig is elected then he is justified in having a WP article per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable; fails WP:Politician. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:Politician. Alternatively merge and redirect to Conservative Party of New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are probably references at http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/ is someone wants to go through a work out which Colin Craig he is. Probably require matching on street address or something. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and the possibility that WP is being used for electioneering ahead of the 2011 general elections. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found his company on the register. Referenced. Luke96241 (talk) 7:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I looked at Conservative Party of New Zealand, there's more coverage about him in those references than there is about the parties itself. If anything, we should delete that article instead of this one. I think he meets GNG--coverage is local but extends back to May of this year. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this page will be kept then. Luke96241 (talk) 5:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin This article was relisted per discussion at WP:DRV.--v/r - T P 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, and it is highly unlikely he will meet it after November 26. I've tried to build the article, but there's nothing that convinces me of his notability. --IdiotSavant (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am in favor of the lowest of all possible bars to inclusion of political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without regard to ideology. This is the founder of a significant political organization in New Zealand. As such, he is a subject worthy of encyclopedic biography on a per se basis, in my estimation. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in encyclopedias. This is why people come to WP -- to find out details about public figures and institutions. Wikipedia would be weakened by the loss of this material offset by no corresponding improvement to the project. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that sounds more like an appeal for changes in policy, rather than a policy based argument for inclusion. Seems to me that the question is whether GNG applies, since he pretty clearly fails POLITICIAN. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy If the decision is to delete this article, please move to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs instead. I agree that Craig fails WP:POLITICIAN, but I'm much less sure that he would also fail WP:BASIC. Schwede 66 19:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I just thought I'd add a few comments here because when I nominated the article I didn't think the discussion would go on this long or be this contentous. I think it is not in dispute that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Therefore the discussion is around if he qualifies under WP:GNG. In my opinion he does not. His political career consists of founding a small minor party, running third in the mayoral contest and organising a well funded but poorly attended march. His business career is not notable; while he seems to have become very wealthy I am not entirely sure what type of industry he was in and I have not seen any coverage of his business career, especially pre his involvement in politics. I think he fails GNG at the moment will probably do so until after the election at best. Happy to support the page being userfied if someone wants to keep it for that possibility. Mattlore (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are about Craig in detail, and are from reliable sources. This constitutes significant coverage: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Significant coverage in reliable sources qualifies topic notability, per WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 16:33, October 6, 2011‎

Keep The GNG is not policy, and neither is POLITICIAN. the are guidelines, and what actually is policy, is that guidelines intrinsically have exceptions; WP:N goes particularly far to make it very plain that it in particular has exceptions; and the GNG makes it even plainer. The criterion for inclusion is that we want to include it. We have often gone rather far to stretch inclusiveness to the most liberal possible standard for political and religious parties and movements, and it is right we do so, for it is these areas in particular where unconscious prejudice can most affect judgements. The only protection against it is to include any such that can be verified. Basically, I agree with Carrite, and endorse the reasons they give. It is not changing policy; it is using judgement. The actual policy is to do whatever helps the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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