< 17 May	19 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Genest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG. As a politician he was never elected and doesn't qualify per WP:POLITICIAN. As an actor he's held only minor roles which do not qualify per WP:ACTOR. The first time this article was nominated for deletion it was removed because he was nominated for a New England Emmy. This might qualify per WP:ANYBIO if he had won, but a single nomination is not considered notable. Importantly, most of the info here is not backed up. All but one of the links are dead and the only piece of confirmed information is that he once taught a permaculture class. West Eddy (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. "Genest used to help teach" is hardly anything to brag about, nor is the uncited "one of the first 250".--Dmol (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - former deputy leader of the Green Party of Canada and well known Quebec actor. Me-123567-Me (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - This also tells me how notable Genest is: "He is also creator, producer and host of Regeneration - The Art of Sustainable Living, nominated for an Emmy Award, from their New England Chapter, in 2008." --Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is he "well-known"?West Eddy (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, as with all actors he's had some smaller roles, but we look instead to his being Dan Kelly in 22 episodes of Sirens, and his being Frank Ross in the miniseries Lance et compte III, and then stir in coverage of him running as the Green Party of Canada candidate during the 2008 Canadian federal election, the addditional coverage of his nomination in their 2006 federal election, his work Regeneration, The Art of Sustainable Living being nominated for an Emmy Award, and see that, though not oustandingly notable for any one thing (not a mandate), his overall career(s) and coverage in multiple reliable sources over a many-years period[1] give him notability enough for Wikipedia. What we have here is an article that needs improvement through regular editing, but not one meriting deletion for that lack. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe borderline for some guidelines, but the sum of his activities appears enough to substain a claim of notability, at least for me. Cavarrone (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Able Australia Services[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Promotional tone. References are from the organisation Dmol (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I noticed on the author's talk page that this has been deleted before.--Dmol (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any indication of notability either. Most of the content has been directly taken from http://www.ableaustralia.org.au/aboutus Tagged respectively. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article, created by SPA, lacks the proof of notablity. -- Dewritech (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to demonstrate notability because its subject lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. →B music ian 07:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am rescuing this article! I have completely rewritten the content of this article. Removing the copy and pasted sections. According to the notability guidelines under companies and organizations, "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." It is fair to state that the vast majority of its audience will be unable to find a use for such content because of communication difficulties. While it is a small organization, (of about 100 people according to records), it still serves a regional purpose and is one of two Australian deafblind services. Their website and information may seem terrible, but their audience typically will not have the means to access useful information. Though I have found numerous interviews and included two of them into the article, more can be found on Deaf Blind Awareness week, but I see no attribution they came up with it, but have a focus in the media on it. It is backed and funded partly by the government. While the occurrence is rare, Able Australia seems to be highly active in the community and has numerous interviews, specials and programs specialized for the individuals. There is loads of information, interviews and content independent of the website that is hosted around the net, even though the primary audience (affected with Deafblindness) will be unable to access these materials and the secondary audience (Australians as a whole community) are unfamiliar with the condition and its difficulty. Do to the audience matters, Able Australia, while notable, can come across as an 'awareness' group, but it in fact takes charge in addressing the problem as well. It should stay because it meets notability requirements. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete—I salute the rescue efforts of User: ChrisGualtieri, but I still don't think the article is quite there. I reviewed the sources added, and they all still seem like recast press releases. When considering how far a source goes to prove notability, you have to ask if a source's coverage is largely based on information published by the subject itself. There's a spectrum here, such as a press release being reposted word-for-word (which does not suggest notability) to a major publisher taking a release and using it as a foundation for independently researched coverage. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the coverage which sources this article falls closer to the former side of that spectrum, than the latter. Hence my weak delete. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question if you mind, how are various interviews and news broadcasts, radio programs and such questionable? Also in the rewrite I do not use any of their own press releases, though typically such press releases are important to any non-profit or government agency. Under WP:CORPDEPTH, these interviews and announcements are all acceptable. It also meets the independent requirement because being on regional or national level TV (many times) is also notability. Its not even public access, but prime news segments. Under WP:NONPROFIT it meets the alternative requirement as well because it is a national focus with lobbying and scope, but regionally locked in actual care of deafblind individuals. I quite disagree with your assessment because the guidelines state that even the information I have found so readily prove notability. Just because something is foreign or specific in scope doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose and merit an article. Its government recognized, funded and promoted on their own pages. Typically if the government finds something notable enough to list it prominently, should we at least have an article on it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. if this organization has existed since 1967 I would expect a lot more coverage. The 7.30 and sky news appearance isn't enough to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gov2Taskforce[edit]

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

I found no notability. The official website seems to just be a Wordpress blog. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability to pass WP:GNG. Most everything is copied from the "official website" so cleanup at least. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 01:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After several searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources for Government 2.0 Taskforce. No prejudice toward future re-creation if significant coverage in reliable sources occurs in the future. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and the article's subject lacks coverage in reliable third-party sources. →B music ian 07:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per above. No independent notability found. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no trace of notability. Even barely manages to pass A7. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Skåne County earthquake[edit]

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

Totally unremarkable earthquake with no fatalities, not even any injuries it seems, nor even any property damage... should even be a speedy delete. Colipon+(Talk) 19:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very rare event in Sweden. Had it been in "earthquake areas" in the world I would have agreed that the earthquake in itself was not notable but it is because it happened in Sweden and is a very rare event.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To make it of encyclopedic standard the article itself must vouch for the subject's notability. "It happened in Sweden and Sweden never gets earthquakes" is a very bad reason to keep the article. That way any snowfall in Sydney, Australia would qualify as notable - simply because it's a rare meteorological event. In order to keep the article, someone needs to work it up to an acceptable encyclopedic standard. Colipon+(Talk) 17:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:EVENT. being a rare event in a county as babbaq argues is not a reason for keeping. What next? An article on 45 degree day in Switzerland? LibStar (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually if it is a rare event like this one and not some small thing like 45 degrees in Switzerland its certainly is a reason for keeping. You are making the classic apple and pears comparison.. often very faulty.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scania As both the article and BabbaQ point out, this was a rare event for Sweden which got coverage from reliable sources - though probably enought to justify a standalone article under WP:EVENT. However, the sources and information are quite good enough to justify merging into a suitable article - I'd probably have suggested a list of earthquakes in the case of a British or German one, but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for Scandinavian earthquakes, so a merger to a regional article which already contains environmental information seems the best choice. PWilkinson (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd be a worse solution than either deleting it or keeping it, actually. Not even every event that's notable enough for its own article would fit into Scania, which covers several hundred years of history in what's one of the most populous provinces of Sweden and for a long time was a big part of Denmark. I'd argue it'd be notable enough to stand on its own long before it merited inclusion in the article about Scania. I'd suggest creating Earthquakes in Sweden if it's not deemed notable enough. /Julle (talk) 09:26, 11 May 2012 (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) 00:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to have received some attention in the press. It's good that no one died, but the absence of fatalities doesn't mean that it's a non-notable event. If it were non-notable, it would have attracted no significant attention, and I don't see that case being made here. Everyking (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2012 (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Weiyuan riot[edit]

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

Seems like just another day in China, which has in excess of 80,000 civil disturbances each year. The event seems like a minor disturbance, whose significance is either minimal or unclear Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE : no riot here . Shrikanthv (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does this above !vote confer with topic notability for Wikipedia articles? No valid rationale to remove the article has been presented here, per WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: User Benjwong (talk · contribs) is a contributor to a number of current events articles. Granted, many of them are significant, interesting, and encyclopedic. A large number of them are not. This is a quintessential example of the latter. I would advise Benjwong to let news sink in before indiscriminately writing an article about any and every event, and that when an article about an event is written, to please elaborate on its significance rather than simply to describe a chronology. Another approach is to write drafts of articles and invite other contributors to pitch in before dishing them out into mainspace. This would save a lot of them from deletion, I'm sure. Colipon+(Talk) 13:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does this above !vote include an analysis of the sources in the article and available sources for the topic? The topic appears to pass WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Keep - It sounds like a riot. From the article:

“

Soon hundreds of people began gathering,[1] and eventually thousands of people arrived on the scene and went after the police. They flipped the police cars and followed the police back to the station.[3] The situation was later controlled.

”

The article appears to be sourced with Chinese-language sources.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my !vote above to keep. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced properly with chinese sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2012 (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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER §2. Even properly sourced, this event has no "enduring notability". Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a poor discussion; "no riot here" is not a cogent argument, and neither does makes "sourced properly with chinese sources" much sense: The issue here is WP:NOTNEWS, and considering that there are apparently often events of this sort in China, and that this one does not appear to have had any lasting importance or coverage, it's just a summary of news reporting that's not what we are here for. Could be briefly summarized in an appropriate list. Sandstein 08:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Babies[edit]

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

Already previously deleted A7 (Band), this recreation fails to meet WP:BAND. The supplied references to this underground band, although in notable newspapers, do not provide significant cover establishing notability for this unsigned, uncharted band. Other sources are basic review listings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Babies are a nationally known band. They have toured nationally and internationally as a solo act and as an opener for such bands as: Guided By Voices, Wavves, Titus Andronicus (band), Best Coast, Times New Viking, Real Estate, and Yuck (band). They are clearly part of the indie rock establishment. They have been reviewed by Pitchfork media which is seen as a gatekeeper to notability in the independent music community. They are talked about in detail in notable News sources: The New York Times, New York Magazine and The New York Observer. Two members of The Babies are members of the bands Vivian Girls and Woods (band). The article for the band is justified.Thriley (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)`[reply]

You are the creator of this article and the onus is on you to provide those refences, and ones that copmply in number, scope, and depth, with WP:RS and WP:V in accordance with the criteria at WP:BAND. The current scant sources do not do it whether the band is well known or not. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BAND says that a band is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.. The Babies has articles about it in the New York Times, New York (magazine), and New York Observer, which are reliable sources. I despise garage band articles, but based on the references, this band is definitely notable. NJ Wine (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - Having been formed by members of three notable bands might very well count as notability. On the other hand, in its current state, the prose of the article simply do not assert any encyclopedic importance whatsoever. I could possibly sway towards a weak keep if only there was something solid in the article for the reader... without expecting them to follow a collection of external links to get the skinny. If the creator has a problem with actually writing this article, I don't see the point of keeping it. -- WikHead (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Keep Clearly notable. I click links already in the article, such as the New York Times one, and I see enough mention of them to confirm they are notable. I'll do some additional searches. Dream Focus 08:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added a quote from a major newspaper praising one of their albums. If anyone wants to sort through the Google news archive results that appear when the band's name and the name of one of their members appear, you'll surely find additional proof. [2] I think what has been found already is evidence enough. Dream Focus 08:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The band has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and appears to pass WP:GNG and criteria #1 of WP:BAND:

New York Press: Where The Babies Comes From
The New York Times: At CMJ, Some Get Spotlight; Others Get Lost in the Haze
Pitchfork Media article: Vivian Girls + Woods = The Babies
Pitchfork Media review: The Babies

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Metacritic reviews, Allmusic profile. Notable. - hahnch e n 11:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage cited in the article demonstrates notability. --Michig (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A well-documented band, plenty of RS material is available. SteveStrummer (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything listed so far indicates that the band is notable enough for this article to remain on Wikipedia. Rcnj (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has significant coverage in reliable sources - passes WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Deletion is absolutely not required here. →B music ian 07:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band meets WP:MUSIC guidelines vis the coverage now cited in the article. — sparklism ^hey! 09:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When was the A7 deletion? If not very old, we got another editor to black mark.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was on May 9th by User:Y.Thriley (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Notable via sources in the article and listed in this discussion. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Borges[edit]

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

There are no references not associated with either the actress (a minor, by the way) or a production she was in. In short, it is unreferenced. Especially since the subject is a minor, this page should be deleted. Does not meet WP:BLPSOURCES Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article should not be deleted because she was the child actress in the soup opera Eva Luna. If you type Eva Luna soap opera here on wikipedia you can have that as a reference, and more references are at the bottom of the article. Gabyborgesactress (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB only shows her as a minor part in two TV episodes. Based on that , she does not meet WP:CREATIVE. NJ Wine (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete First two refs are from Univision, so not exactly independent and one of them is a just a photograph. The other two refs never mention Borges. For the IMDb ref mentioned by NJ Wine, IMDb only lists two episodes for all the actors while there were 114 episodes filmed. I'm having a hard time finding just how many episodes she was in. She did sing and release atleast one single. I'm finding alot of unreliable refs, which come with the territory of a telenovela. I want really want to say keep, but haven't found anything yet. Bgwhite (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note. IMDB is not the be-all and end all, is quite incomplete when it comes to Spanish television, and is not considered a reliable source in any case. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

220 episodes were filmed and Gaby was in 140 of them. Two of the references are from Telenovelas y Series which is owned by Univision, as far as I'm concerned wiki only needs one reliable source. By the way, yes she is a young actress but not for that reason the page should be deleted, because I found several young actors on wiki, if you need the names I will provide them gladly.Gabyborgesactress (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriela is indeed worthy of being listed here she did a tremendous job Laurita the daughter of Daniel (Guy Ecker) she was in 80% of all the episodes of the series. You can find plenty of information at the Eva Luna web site and at the conclusion of the series she had the closing song Ava Maria. She was not only in Eva Luna but also a Macy's commercial, she was a dancer on Sabido Grande for a long time. For anyone to say because she is a young actress is not relevant, there are many young actors and actresses already list here, and Gabriela deserves to be among them all. There can be more found of her on the Don Fransisco web site, also you can find more at stars2come promotions web magazine. Please reconsider the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars2come (talk • contribs) 01:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC) — Stars2come (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment My concern about Ms. Borges's age is not that young performers are any more or less noteworthy due to their age; it is that ANY minor is more in need of the protection of "WP" than an adult. Still haven't seen any arguement for keep that rises much above WP:ILIKEIT. It seems kinda creepy to me that a Google image search turns up hundreds of results, but a Google web search turns up next to nothing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Images aside, did you reserch any of the 60+ G-News results?[3] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The majority were not about the subject of this article. The few that were are already mentioned and are not exactly reliable. One led to a page that my browser warned me not to open!Gtwfan52 (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That a contributor User:Gabyborgesactress is writing about and defending an article about Gabriela Borges gives major concerns toward WP:COI. That issue asisde, what we have non-rs speaking toward this minor child and her growing body of work. We have a lack of properly independent and reliable sources dealing with her. This makes this article at best premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per the rationale of User:MichaelQSchmidt... he took the words right out of my mouth. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Bentancourt[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL, as he hasn't yet played a professional match. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by page creator. Scopecreep (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Footballer in a U-19 team, not notable. Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 20:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, someday maybe a keeper but for now not article worthy. 209.117.69.2 (talk) 22:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to team's article. If there is one. UsedBeen20 (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This article fails WP:GNG, and until Mr. Bentancourt makes his debut, it fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 07:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per above, fails relevant notability guidelines. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like most of the articles brought here (about this topic), this also fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources. →B music ian 07:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Uhlmann[edit]

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

Has not played in a fully professional league and has not made a full senior appearance. Simione001 (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player played in the FIFA Club World Cup, a major international competition. As players who have played in the main stages of the UEFA Champions League and the Europa League are considered notable, This should also be the case for the intercontinental competition. --Kafuffle (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree. He has played in the FIFA Club World Cup which surely should count for notability. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~DELETE~~. The Club world cup is a cup competition which, many players have played in this competition and qualifying out of Oceania is not exactly the highest standard, I dont think thats really very notable. He has not played in a professional league or for the senior national team.Simione001 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL because he has represented his country in an officially sanctioned senior international competition. NealeFamily (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - according to the article, he has not been capped for New Zealand, and he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first and foremost he fails WP:GNG, and I'm hot happy that playing a few matches in what is basically a FIFA vanity tournament is enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL either. Giant Snowman 15:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just as playing in the qualifying rounds of the UEFA Champions League or Europa League doesn't confer notability due to the lack of coverage and the presence of non-fully pro teams, playing in the FIFA Club World Cup shouldn't either for the same reasons. More importantly, this article fails the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Basically then there should be around over 1,000 wikipedia pages about a bunch of players who have only played against teams in the FA Cup that should be deleted because of non-fully pro teams. Come on, number 1 I 100% disagree about the lack of coverage for the Club World Cup, not as covered like the Premier League, Champions League or the real FIFA World Cup but it does gain a lot of coverage from top footy pages. Also Greg did play against a fully-pro team in what is a professional tournament in Atlante F.C. and he did play in the OFC Champions League which should also count notability because that is a professional international tournament. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:OFC Champions League is a cup competition not a professional league. The fact is he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ArsenalKid. Your FA Cup arguement falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Every article should be judged on its own merits. That being said, I agree with your hypothisis that articles on players who have only played in the early rounds of the FA Cup should be deleted. It is not uncommon that the player notability in cup competitions changes from round to round. If Mr. Uhlmann had played in the final of the Club World Cup, I might be inclined to say he'd be notable, but certainly not for the early rounds. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines, this guy has not played professional league football and should be deleted, though the WCC is a high-profile tournament it does not meet the guidelines, he will likely be re-instated soon when he turns out in the league. London456 (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to sourcing rescue. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund Sobolewski[edit]

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

This is effectively an unreferenced WP:BLP; while it does cite a significant number of "references", every single one of them is a bare URL that links to a dead or nonexistent page, which means that the article's content is currently unverifiable until someone can find new ones. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can salvage it with updated and properly formatted referencing, but it's distinctly not properly referenced in its current form. Delete if referencing hasn't been repaired by close; while he's presumably notable enough to be kept if the article is referenced properly, we can't keep articles that nobody's prepared to work on maintaining or cleaning up. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep until someone can look into locating additional references.Turqoise 127 18:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every source except one turns out to be available. The links have been updated. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, consider this nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Darwinism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I feel it's a shame that this article hasn't improved, but is still relying on the shaky foundations of blog posts and opinion pieces, violating WP:RS. It smells even more of WP:NEO and I can't find any of the arguments that it met WP:N very convincing (a Google search does not notability establish, nor does the abstract, unsourced idea that this is a well established term). The author originally asked for a chance to give the article to have 'a chance to grow' but later admitted he admitted he himself had 'been swayed towards delete throughout the discussion. I was just trying to find more sources to see if the article was salvagable'. I think, in lieu of some new foothold appearing to bring the article up to standard, it does not deserve to stay. Rushyo ^Talk 17:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, slipshod neologism with no fixed usage. Entry fails to make the case that this is either notable or consistently used. Hairhorn (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I am sure that there is natural selection in the evolution of human ideas, this article does not establish that "Intellectual Darwinism" is consistently used as a name for it. The three sources cited in the article use the expression in three different ways. Borock (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Evaluating this subject involves more than just reading the current article or seeing what the "article establishes". You'll need to look at more than merely "the three sources cited in the article", given that there was a lot of stuff pointed out in the previous AFD discussion, which was later removed from the article itself by Hairhorn. At the very minimum, all of that needs to be evaluated as well. After all, what weight would you give to an opinion that didn't? Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to peek at the previous version, or even replace the material I removed in February. I think you'll find the comments I made in my edit summary still apply: that this was just a laundry list of mentions with no consistent usage. Hairhorn (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the word "Darwinism" is usually used in a negative sense. A more NPOV title would be something like "Evolution of ideas." (If that's the intended topic of the article.) Borock (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The term has been used in other works:

Victorian Anthropology. GEORGE W. STOCKING, JR. Free Press (Macmillan), New York, and Collier Macmillan, London, 1987 "the purely visible was displaced not just by intellectual Darwinism but by an overall shift of attention to subsurface order, the general hidden."
Microserfs. Douglas Copeland. Harper Perennial (May 30, 1996) "in the information Dark Ages before 1976, relationships and television were the only forms of entertainment available. But now we have VCRs, tape rentals, PCs, modems, touch tone dialing, cellular phones, ATMs, bar coding, Federal Express, satellite TV, CDs and calculators of other worldly power that are so cheap they practically come free with a tank of petrol"
Journal of the American Medical Association. Robert M. Cook-Degan. Review of Natural Obsessions, a book by Natalie Marie Angier: ..."the brutal intellectual darwinism that dominates the high-stakes world of molecular genetics research."

Yet I !vote delete, because I don't find reliable coverage of the term itself, only the term used in other works. In some cases there is short parenthetical explanation of the concept, but it's not the focus of any work. As such, it clearly falls into the realm specifically referred to in WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." The books and articles that I have found do not focus on the term itself, but only explain it, as if it should be unfamiliar to the reader. To me, this is exactly the situation WP:NEO tries to avoid. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I asked MuZemike for a checkuser check, given that history seemed to be repeating itself. Based upon what xe has said, I'm closing this as a bad faith discussion started by a banned user, with some fairly obvious attempts to stack the nonexistent ballot box by other accounts. History was indeed repeating itself.

Egg Centric and Sergecross73, you appear to have good faith opinions, but the effect of a banned user mucking about has drowned them out. Bear in mind that you don't need an AFD discussion for a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hoang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails notability by my standards. In light of other survivor contestants getting nominated and this article's AFD history, I am nominating this one for deletion since it's not likely his other accomplishments would turn heads. I am suggesting we redirect this to Survivor: Gabon. --CobraGlass (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above and long AFD history. 208.54.37.179 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per long AFD history. This article has had 3 keep and 1 no consensus decisions, with 1 keep predating his appearance on Survivor. His appearance on Survivor would grant additional notability not reduce it. The argument "in light of other survivor contestants getting nominated" smacks of a WP:POINT violation and the article's AfD history should in no way count against it, particularly when 3 of them were full of sock puppetry and SPA as noted by the closing admin. Eastshire (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note The nominating account, in the grand tradition of AfD for this article, seems to be a SPA. Eastshire (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

let's not start attacking the nominator please. The article was nominated 4 times before and therefore not everyone agrees this person deserves his own article. 208.54.36.165 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that 3 of those were determined by an admin to be either in bad faith or subverted by SPA, it's notable that the nominator appears to be a single purpose account. And the number of prior nominations would seem to me to weight towards keep rather than allowing continued forum shopping by renomination Eastshire (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Nothing wrong with simply pointing out it's an SPA. That's just a fact, not an attack. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you care? Wikipedia is just like any other public site so anyone can put up their opionion, just like you. 209.117.69.2 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst people are welcome to their opinion, Wikipedia is not an anarchy. We have policies and guidelines for how people should behave, such as civility towards others. SPAs can often be observed to be associated with behaviour which breach these guidelines and cause disruption and disputes, hence it is not considered unreasonable (and certainly not an attack) to point out someone appears to be an SPA, something which enable others to take that into consideration when framing their debate and considering how to evaluate the general consensus. It is also generally agreed that the fact someone is an SPA should not be used to prejudice their arguments, if valid, and their points are given equal merit in spite of the label. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know there are guidelines. Still the fact that this article has seen a number of nominations shows we need to rethink the notibility of this article. I simply don't see any off the chart accomplishments as far as I'm concerned. 209.117.69.2 (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and lay off this article. Continuous re-nominations of same hated article in order to achieve a different desired result are pathetic. Turqoise127 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as no evidence presented or established. Feel that to warrant a fifth AfD attempt there really needs to be a good reason to think why the consensus is likely to change. We do not delete articles because they do not meet one person's subjective standards, which is what the nominator's argument appears to be. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there nothing wrong the nominating an article if someone feels it should be deleted

Please do not delete the comments of others, as you just did to mine and familiarise yourself with WP:Deletion Policy and WP:Notability. The fact something fails notability to a single person's subjective standard is not considered legitimate grounds for deletion. I should also note that I have not suggested the nomination was illegitimate and to pretend I did is a straw man argument.-Rushyo ^Talk 22:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Looking at the previous AFDs proponents of this article have not stated why this person is notabile to begin with. Participating in a Reality TV show doesn't grant notability. Nuff said. 209.117.69.2 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice a recurring theme is that people feel that because there have already been various AfDs this adds weight to changing the status quo of the article. It does not, it in fact shows that despite there being legitimate reasons why people would think it might be deleted, it is the consensus up until this point that it not be deleted and that consensus is not likely to change. If you believe it should be deleted, you need to present evidence.-Rushyo ^Talk 22:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, Natalie White was redirected to Survivor: Samoa even though she was the winner. Simply put, playing a reality TV series doesn't make a person notable. Even the gaming accomplishments hardly make this person a household name. 209.117.69.2 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a household name isn't a requirement for notability according to any Wikipedia policy. It's merely a personal subjective measure. The guidelines for notability state that the general threshold for inclusion is 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. You need to link your arguments to Wikipedia policy and objective facts. Also please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for why drawing comparisons to other articles tends not to be a persuasive argument. -Rushyo ^Talk 22:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out earlier, Ken Hoang passed an AfD prior to being on Survivor. The current consensus is that he is notable without regard to being on Survivor. Being on Survivor does not make him less notable than he was previously. Eastshire (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The next thing you know, we'll be writing articles about our next door neighbor who spent his life playing video games. UsedBeen20 (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC) (Sock account)[reply]

This argument (without evidence to back it up) represents a slippery slope logical fallacy. -Rushyo ^Talk 10:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, UsedBeen20 is likely to be the same IP as 209.117.69.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as per their contributions. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) A bit iffy (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough reliable sources to confer notability. Nothing has changed since the last 4 stacked SPA nominations. - hahnch e n 11:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Consensus can change, so rather than arguing over his past AFD's, we should discuss why he passes the WP:GNG now. My concern is, I'm looking through these sources, and a lot of them are either not reliable, or just link to main pages of websites. (At least one of the CBS and MLG sources just go to their main page, not mentioning Ken at all.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this has come in light of other articles of survivor contestants being deemed non-notable. The winner of Survivor: South Pacific (Sophie Clarke) got redirected by consensus so this person really is no different. The keep voters of this article might have voted keep, and it would be hard to dispute her notability. I serously doubt his gaming stuff is notable to begin with. The first nomination was closed only after a few days and a few votes, so it's hard to support a keep with that. UsedBeen20 (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through and fix up dead links for MLG, at least. Both of those respective web sites have changed completely since those refs were added. -Rushyo ^Talk 18:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no policy based rationale have been given by either the nominator nor other editor !voting to delete. It would appear that the quantity and quality of the sources already existing in the article clearly surpasses the requirements for inclusion. I fail to see the point of the nomination. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The nominator of this AfD is a Confirmed sock puppet of banned user Don't Feed the Zords (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 21:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, without linking any accounts to IPs, I can also confirm that all the IPs are engaged in double-!voting in this AfD. --MuZemike 21:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Sergecross73, hardly convinced by gaming info and keep comments. 107.16.78.114 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC) — 107.16.78.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect - yeah, the support of sockpuppet city here isn't encouraging. But if survior contestants don't necessarily deserve their own article, and he seems to have been a minor one at best, let's have a look at the other thingys... yeah there have been a few AfDs, but the most recent ones have suffered from the same sockpuppet issues and have hardly had discussion, so disregard 'em. Where meaningful AfD discussions were had back in 2009 the surviror stuff was being taken by other editors to be more important, as back then the other contestants did have articles from what I can see. I believe an admin could look at the previous arguments in context and come to a consensus to delete/redirect, put it that way. Anyway, this guy has averaged $10k a year in winnings from his computer gaming activities. Put bluntly, not very impressive, there are illiterate Chinese teenagers making more than that gold mining in WoW. (Technically it probably meets GNG but this is a BLP remember) Egg Centri c 00:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of money won isn't a valid criteria; WP:Significant coverage is :) Besides, I suspect the large majority of sports people who meet WP:N have barely won anything, nevermind dominating a particular field of their sport for many years. I'm unfamiliar as to how WP:BLP would have a significant impact on the WP:GNG in this instance. Could you elaborate? -Rushyo ^Talk 11:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF - you can think of that (I certainly do) as increasing bias towards removal. Put bluntly this guy is a total non entity atm, and (while this is not the only reason I am voting this way) I can't put it out of my head that the sock activity around this article is cause he wants rid of it himself. Egg Centri c 18:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're relying on the argument of a sport's #1, with large amounts of citable third-party coverage, being a total non entity? As I've said, most sports players of note don't even win anything, let alone pretty much every tournament they enter. I suspect your issue is with Esports and not this person at all. Am I wrong? I've said it above but I'll say it again: Being a household name isn't a requirement for notability according to any Wikipedia policy. It's merely a personal subjective measure. The guidelines for notability state that the general threshold for inclusion is 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. This has been met. Additionally, your WP:NPF citation actually contradicts your argument, it clearly states: "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known". This argument is only applicable after you already accept that he is notable enough for an entry, not to mention WP:BLP is about protecting against contentious material, which this AfD is not about. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your idea that these socks are his personal crusade to eliminate his own article falls over when you note the socks have been attacking other Survivor-related articles and other sports' AfDs. It's nothing specific to this fellow at all. Based on my interactions with them it seems far more likely they just don't take Survivor and UFC seriously and fervently believe that means they're not eligible for inclusion. -Rushyo ^Talk 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with e-sports as such, but I would also have an issue with having anyone who can win any organised tourney for any game having an article (because there are tens of thousands of games; I was once the best player of a semi-obscure flight simulator and have also received press covereage for other things, but I certainly ain't notable) - therefore my criteria for judging which e-sports matter, for want of having a better one (and this is mostly hypothetical because it's not as if I've contributed to hundreds of e-sports AfDs, or even two as far as I can remember) is going to be the prize money. It may be that I'm looking for too much prize money of course...

Having said that if the socks are attacking articles indiscriminately, something I hadn't realised, then I am far happier with the article staying up, and if indeed I am the only non-sock on this I suppose I don't mind it being speedy'd - not because I don't think my arguement has any merit at all, but because a) it doesn't look like it'll win anyway and b) so many respected editors think otherwise I'm probably missing even more than I've already realised I'm missing!

Egg Centri c 19:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Aside from the redirect above me the others are from sock accounts, based on the reliable sources present it does meet WP:GNG and has WP:Significant coverage as stated above. I see no reason to delete this well sourced article, it does pass WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the obvious reasons, detailed above, or perhaps speedy keep in light of the circumstances surrounding the nom: 21:02, 19 May 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs) blocked CobraGlass (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts: User:Don't Feed the Zords). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin The same sock account had also been the one who requested deletion for this article every time since the first AfD proposal (2nd AfD - Current one) Almost every time the discussion was closed as keep, if this article is to be kept is there a way to protect it against future AfDs by the sock? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nothing screams bad faith like a sockmaster not getting his way the first time. Ish dar ian 02:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Booze cluze[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax. Cannot find any sources except social networking sites, which suggests that the character is "made up" by someone. jfd34 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete vandalism by random kid. Scopecreep (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was dealt with. This was the result of two attribution-free copies-and-pastes by Marc Shepherd (talk · contribs), which left an orphaned history here that was turned into a disambiguation between the two copies. I've done a fairly complex history merger to clean up the resultant mess. If you want to understand the details, see my deletion, rename, edit, and undeletion logs for today. The full history of the original article is now in one place at IRT Eastern Parkway Line, back where it began in 2004, and IRT New Lots Line has the best history that I could fix up to indicate that it began as a copy and paste, although it now erroneously appears that someone other than Marc Shepherd did the copy and paste. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRT Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line[edit]

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

An inappropriate disambiguation page listing two different New York City Subway Lines that do not have the same name and were not built at the same time. While they do connect with each other, every other subway line has at least one connection to another line and the New Lots Line is an elevated two-track line while the Eastern Parkway Line is an underground four-track line that also connects to the IRT Nostrand Avenue Line. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm trying to understand why this even exists. The edit history is confusing, but there seems to have been a squabble about what line the article actually should describe, and some confusion between the two lines. It started being about the New Lots Line, moved to IRT Eastern Parkway Line, and then to the current title, before someone realised it was stupid and changed it to a disambiguation page. Delete as contrary to policy on article naming and disambiguation pages. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it looks like all the useful content was merged into Eastern Parkway Line and New Lots Line circa 2007. The article's scope (and name) changed a few times as editors clarified their understanding of the topic. Haus^Talk 15:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Logan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated previously, due to vandalous edits that weren't detected. As for now, the subject hardly meets WP:PROF, and the main contributor, User:FSUlawalumni is a likely COI. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 12:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a named professor (Gary & Sallyn Pajcic Professor)[4], which seems to meet WP:ACADEMIC. His book Knowledge as Power has reviews in academic journal Punishment & Society[5] and lawyers magazine Champion[6], and from various academics websites[7][8][9], indicating his ideas have some influence and imprtance. USLaw.com says he "has authored many of the most important articles about sex offender laws".[10] --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula; in addition to the academic references xe cites, Logan and his work have also received coverage from nonacademic news sites as well such as [11][12][13]. --Arxiloxos (talk)
Keep: Significant coverage and significant recognition in reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No valid reason advanced for deletion. If the subject barely meets the SNG, it meets the SNG; some other substantive grounds would be required to delete (eg, lack of reliable sourcing, which clearly isn't a problem here.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Colapeninsula. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Colapeninsula -- named chair profs w/ reviewed books in substantial journals and citations outside are usually not even borderline by WP:PROF. The COI seems weak -- it's an alum of the same school, beyond that there's no evidence of a conflict. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Horsham Sparrows F.C.[edit]

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

Youth sports teams are not generally notable, nothing to suggest this one is any different. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local team. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability .They are essentially a small community team playing in a provincial town. dorkinglad(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.88.142 (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief' summary to the article on Horsham. Then delete. This is a club that can be of no more than local significance, as indicated by the number of red links in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability.--Charles (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable nor referenced. Google also doesn't give any notable results. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G7. I've looked at the history and in my judgement, the only substantial edits are from the article's creator who is the one requesting deletion. He just didn't know how. If anybody disagrees with this close and/or wishes to make a "keep" argument, let me know and I (or another admin) will restore the article and reopen the AFD Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wade (rugby league)[edit]

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

Nominated on behalf of User:Josh the newcastle fan. No opinion, myself. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marios Antoniades[edit]

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

One 3-minute appearance in a fully professional league, although it technically satisfies WP:NFOOTY, it doesn't seem to make the subject more notable than before. Also fails WP:GNG too due to lack of significant media coverage. I PRODed it at first, but then I realized it's not a good idea, so I'm running it through AfD instead. – Kosm1 fent 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 12:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I only was able to find one interview with Antoniades (in Greek) and a number of articles that simply mention him in match reports (mostly U21 and friendly matches). I don't think this article meets the GNG and the common sense thing to do is wait until we can write a more substantive article when (if) significant coverage in reliable sources exist. Jogurney (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let's show some WP:COMMONSENSE here. 3 minutes on a sporting field is not enough to be considered notable; fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG. While it technically passes WP:NSPORT, I agree with what has already been said: Commonsense is definitely called for here. There's a reasonable chance that he'll be notable in the future, but not now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His 3 minutes of playing do not make him notable. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per SL93. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 02:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a copyright violation SmartSE (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Chance[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP. He has one release on Raucous Records and one self-released album, so don't see him meeting WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 12:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As per nomination C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 12:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page is copy pasted from subjects personal website! [14] Doesn't meet notability guidelines. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copy and pasted content should be deleted straight away. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 17:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I just tagged it as G12. No need to wait through AfD. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 08:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maranatha day[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe event with no web presence except the external link. Article seems also to be a copyvio of the external link. Bazonka (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the article's creator. MARANATHA DAY is notable because it is a new, but rapidly growing concept among participating churches all over the world. Many practising Christians will recognise the significance of the concept, as well as its huge potential as it increasingly becomes popular as an annual event. A huge number of churches and Christians are participating in the maiden observance of the event on May 20, 2012. There is growing online presence on social media channels - Facebook, YouTube, Twitter. This article is a response to the growing request for information on MARANATHA DAY.--Doludairo (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Does not meet criteria for WP:EVENT. Gwen Chan 14:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article creator seems to be saying that this will become a notable event. That may be, and if so, the article can be recreated at that time. For now though, it does not appear to be notable. LadyofShalott 15:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has no coverage in independent reliable sources, thus does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. As LadyofShalott says, when and if there is such coverage, the article can be recreated. Right now, it's just advertising.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources provided or news coverage located. If this event becomes established as notable later, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal balling, for starters. Promotional for seconds. Heavily drenched in POV for thirds. Carrite (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not so notable. Also fails WP:EVENT and wiki is not a crystal ball. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. (from article's creator) viewed strictly from an events-perspective, all the comments above are very fair. However, the article's relevance is wider than just an 'event'. It is the underlying Christianity-based theme that gives it its flavour and relevance (as par the eschatological dimension and implication of MARANATHA DAY as a holy day). In addition to all the comments above, it will also be interesting to see comments and evaluation from this perspective, please. Thank you.--Doludairo (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Wikipedia, WP:N is all that really matters. Bazonka (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Winning Way[edit]

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

This article is about the book, which is not notable under WP:BKCRIT. Even though it's author has a article on Wikipedia, The book itself fails to meet the notability criteria on Wikipedia. Max Viwe | Your Turn 11:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't want to !vote now because I agree that the article didn't establish notability but I believe it may be notable. I just wanted to remark so anyone else looking for sources knows to look for sources for the book's full title as well "The winning way: Learning from Sport managers". Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The book is getting more and more popular these days. As of notability; try a Google Search and you get plenty of notability. Also, the author, Harsha Bhogle is a famous sports manager and perhaps every Indian knows him (Well I got Off-topic to Harsha Bhogle). Research and you'll get it. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability guidelines are not cleanups. Clearly, it has published reviews, which substantiates an independent notability. The matter that this topic fails a guideline is irrelevant to the matter of this topic's notability itself. It can meet other guidelines if it would fail GNG, such as "not temporary" and "verifiable" sections in WP:notability. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it does pass WP:GNG and as far as WP:BKCRIT is concerned, it is not notable. According to WP:BKCRIT, this article fails point number: 2, 3 and 4 also little 1. It only passes point 5, but its author is notable and thus this doesn't make the book notable. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BRCRIT may not apply to this topic, but the topic is still notable. In fact, it may have a plot that inspires reviews, and the notability guideline about books are not totally absolute. Also, the article is encyclopedic and well-written. --George Ho (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Memi Alan[edit]

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

There seems to be a great lack of reliable sources that can confirm that this film meets our film notability guide. However, given that this seems a Kurdish film, that may be part of the problem of locating sources. Finding sources reasoning similar to that given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akar Araz. Canuck^{89 »–—►(click here!)◄–—«} 04:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2012 (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) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This television program is probably notable enough to warrant an article, but no reliable sources have been provided. The best source provided is a message board thread. Furthermore, that message board thread includes the statement, "... the work on the superb drama kicked off in 2001. Now it is achieved and ready to be broadcasted." Thus, the article's statement that this program was originally shown in 2001 is probably incorrect, but I don't know when it actually was first shown. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Definitely difficult to source, but seems to have had wide Farsi language airings per Kurdinet,[15][16] as a series of 30 45-minute degments.[17] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G12. You're correct Gene93k. Almost the entire article is copied from different parts of mtk.edu.az. If somebody actually wants to write an "article" about this school then go for it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Educational Complex[edit]

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

At the point of nomination, this is an unsourced article in promotional style. Notability has not been demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unless significant reorganization is made, the article is highly promotional, without a claim of notability. It reads like an advert, and has no sources. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is terrible and the text reads like copyvio. But this complex contains a secondary school. If this is not a G11/G12 candidate, I suggest starting over from a verifiable stub. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mount Elgon and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elgonian[edit]

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

Possibly eligible for G3, but I'm bringing it here just in case... There appears to be no record of the community described here; all sources suggest the area in question is populated by the Bagisu, Sabiny and Ogiek tribes, not "Elgonians". This strikes me as an attempt to start a movement, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any relevant Google hits about the Elgonian peoples: there are Google hits for the word, but it generally seems to be a user name or refer to people called Ian. The article is highly POV, which isn't necessarily grounds for deletion if the topic is notable, but it seems like the page has been created for propaganda reasons (albeit propaganda for peace and harmonious international relations). Hopefully, deletion will not harm relations between Kenya and Uganda. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This content is unencyclopaedic on its face. It's not even an attempt at an encyclopaedia article. It's an exhoration addressing the reader in the first person. There's no documented encyclopaedic subject by this name, although clearly the content's author would like there to be one. "Elgonian" is an adjective in actual use, and where my research turns up that adjective being used in the world at large indicates that a simple redirect to Mount Elgon per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) serves the reader best. Uncle G (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — Would speedy as a Hoax, but doesn't exaclty meet criteria as to an intent to vandalize. Article is not encyclopedic, and word is not defined in any major dictionary. A web search returns no specific results, other than the article itself. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 12:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Copyvio by User:Seraphimblade. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay–Philippines relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. this is part of a recent series of copy and pasted material (translated) by one editor who has now been warned twice. lifted from http://www.embafil.com.ar/Paraguay.html . no actual embassies just honorary consuls. those wanting to keep must show evidence of actual third party coverage of a relationship. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a source:

"Secretary Del Rosario Reactivates Phl Ties with Uruguay and Paraguay". Republic of the Philippines, Department of Foreign Affairs. August 27, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how about some third party sources, not foreign ministry websites? LibStar (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. That you can find the two countries mentioned in the same article isn't surprising, or indicative of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Horror Story (season 2)[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article consists largely of speculation about a season that has yet to begin filming. It contains information which may or may not turn out to be true. Not appropriate per WP:FUTURE. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON, article should be created when real information becomes available. Basic confirmed details can be posted to American Horror Story for the time being. West Eddy (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article contains lots of information specific to the second season, which would not be useful on the American Horror Story article because it does not pertain to the series as a whole. Everything that needs sourcing is, from reliable third party publications, and more information is becoming available all the time. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is ridiculous. The page contains as much information on the second season as is known and is regularly updated. No speculation whatsoever. Why don't you want Game of Thrones (season 3) or The Walking Dead (season 3) deleted..? Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate them for deletion if you think they don't meet WP policy. See WP:AFD. "Other stuff exists" isn't generally considered a good argument, because Wikipedia is far from perfect and there are always lots of bad articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compared to all the post-upfront new season articles that have been populating AfD, this one has its ducks in a row. Plenty of good sourcing for what is an unusual series that isn't carrying over their season one concept. Nate • (chatter) 04:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's maybe a little early, but it's sourced, it's going to get released, and it's not speculation and there's info on it. Easy keep. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Series creator Ryan Murphy has revealed the setting and the time in which the season will be set, and many notable people have been cast. Like others have said, it's regularly updated and no speculation is found within the article. Also, as SchrutedIt08 has said, this series (and its seasons) is an anthology, meaning each season is different and a global "mention" in the main series article will not do justice to the seasons. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems that this clearly passes WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. These aren't rumors, there are reliable sources to draw from, it is a future event, but there is no extrapolation used in anything stated in this article. Roodog2k (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Desperate Housewives characters. After condensing appropriately. Sandstein 08:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acquaintances of Gabrielle Solis[edit]

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

Article is entirely unsourced, consisting of WP:INDISCRIMINATE info and original research. Tgeairn (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - same argument as with the AfD for Acquaintances of Susan Mayer: when a series has several minor characters spread in numerous articles, Wikipedia says that deletion should be a last resort and recommends that "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ...";". The main list of characters is already too long, and this article features many characters that once were part of the main cast, such as John Rowland, Ana Solis or Juanita Solis, but that are not notable enough for a separate article. Surely, there are sources discussing the portrayals of Jesse Metcalfe, Maiara Walsh, or Madison De La Garza, perhaps not to split own articles for their characters, but at least to keep this least with real-world content. In any case, I favor trimming and merging into the main List, over just deleting. --LoЯd ۞pεth 07:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It is excessively detailed, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Wikipedia articles are meant to be more than just plot summaries. Editing and merging seems better, unless some encyclopedic content can be added, like critical analysis - but is there really good quality material for critical analysis of minor characters? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list of characters in the series or else Delete. Information on the characters in a fictional work might be okay for an encyclopedia, but entire articles or lists on how they relate to each other seems more like something that belongs in a fan site. Borock (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a character list. This is excessive coverage--if any of these are notable, break them out into their own character articles, but I'd need to see a real good justification for multiple list of characters from a single TV series. Of course, trimming appropriately during merge is a great idea, too. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per everything Lord Opeth said. The article is worthy to keep. Creativity97 (Talk) 14:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge into a broader / shorter character list. It's a real no-no to endlessly fork an article or list unless individual subjects truly become notable. See WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liz English[edit]

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

Fails WP:N (WP:GNG), and WP:NACTOR. Her only performance was in the film The Aristocats. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without coverage in reliable sources, she doesn't pass the notability guidelines. The article has almost no information on her, and no references, so a merge to The Aristocats isn't justified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ I've filled in a few more details along with IMDb as a source. English did have a number of appearances in very notable films, and was a backing singer for very notable singers. However, all appearances seem to be of a minor nature so I think the article just fails WP:NACTOR. I can't find any obituaries in any news sources —I would have expected something for a notable actress dying relatively young--A bit iffy (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. IMDB is not a reliable source, and we have no others. If all the info here is about the same person, some of it must be incorrect as it implies she had a daughter at an impossibly young age, but there's no way of knowing what's wrong. Qwfp (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete. Didn't realise IMDb isn't deemed a reliable source. And as Qwfp points out, the dates of birth of the mother (1961) and the daughter (1962) are together impossible. The bio of the daughter suggests to me the 1962 could be about right, so possibly the 1961 is a typo. But was the kitten Marie in Aristocats voiced by a child? (I don't recall the character.) If so, then something is still badly wrong. Anyway, the verififiability is so limited we can't let this article remain whithout much better sources.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete While IMDB is unacceptable as a citation, it can often lead us to better sources. Her voice role as Marie in Aristocats is confirmable through the work itself. That said, her brief body of work fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. It seems she was writen about in Titbits Magazine (UK) 3 January 1981, pg. 28, "Mum Has The Last Word", but I cannot find an online archive of that article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to List of Glee episodes to be consistent with the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glee (season 4) (note correct capitalization of "season"), which closed on 12 May. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glee (Season 4)[edit]

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

This article consists largely of speculation about a season that has yet to air. Not appropriate per WP:FUTURE. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON, article should be created when real information becomes available. West Eddy (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be deleted. And information has become available. There are sorces everywhere. Ryan Murphy has confirmed many things and so has fox. Yes, the Season has yet to air but it is confirmed by Fox and as news about the season comes, it should go to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijoshiexo (talk • contribs)
Delete Nothing is confirmable until August, late July if I'm being charitable. No need for this article at this time until we get more sources than what the TV gossipers have been speculating on, and whatever Ryan Murphy has said on Twitter. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. List of Glee episodes already contains material on series 4 and anything important could go there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no support for deletion apart from the nomination, although the possibility to merge with the election article may deserve consideration. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Romero Roses[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria under WP:POLITICIAN Arbor8 (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect- Basic candidacy to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2012#District 26 until the election. Restore and update if elected, retain if the Democratic nominee, and delete if defeated in the primary August 14th. Dru of Id (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Dru's Merge & Redirect is good too. Obviously this is a spammy article created in connection with the current election, so a tight rein should be kept on the content, but with Google News showing media coverage every few years going back to 1996 for things other than candidacy she is really in the vicinity of fulfilling WP:BASIC. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 04:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Dru of Id. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, does not meet WP:PEOPLE. Google news gave 22 hits; unfortunately 18 are pay-per-view, 2 are dead, and one is in Spanish. The one English-language article I could read was about her presumed Republican opponent, and mentioned her in just one sentence. Even assuming that some of the 18 pay-per-view articles are primarily about her or her candidacy, this does not amount to coverage from "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." -- Donald Albury 12:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gloria Romero Roses is considered a significant candidate for this office in South Florida. In addition to being backed by both the national party and EMILY's List (cites below), she has significant coverage above and beyond 4 non-paywalled hits. Some examples:

Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/23/2765392/democratic-congressional-challenger.html

News Service of Florida: http://politics.nsfblogs.com/2012/05/15/gloria-romero-roses-emilys-list/

Saint Peters Blog: http://saintpetersblog.com/2012/04/huh-gloria-romero-roses-already-makes-the-dcccs-emerging-races-program/

CBS Miami: http://miami.cbslocal.com/tag/gloria-romero-roses/ (with video)

Naples News: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/apr/24/democrats-work-to-boost-rivera-challenger/

ABC Miami: http://www.local10.com/news/politics/Newcomer-to-challenge-U-S-Rep-Rivera/-/1895020/10376954/-/h0a6qpz/-/index.html (with video)

NBC Miami: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Southwest-Ranches-Businesswoman-to-Run-for-Congress-146698255.html

Caracol Radio (Colombian radio in Miami, in Spanish): http://www.caracol1260.com/noticia/oponente-femenina-le-aparece-a-david-rivera-para-la-camara-de-represantantes-por-el-distrito-26-la-senora-gloria-romero-roses-y-aca-esta-al-aire/20120409/oir/1667002.aspx

Tampa Bay Times: http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/democrats-find-new-challenger-david-rivera%7C+tampabay.com%29

National Journal, top DC tipsheet: http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/04/businesswoman-t.php

Roll Call: http://atr.rollcall.com/florida-david-rivera-gets-democratic-opponent/

The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/220501-democrats-land-recruit-to-challenge-rep-rivera

Eyes on Miami: http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2012/04/candidate-romero-roses-runs-against.html

News and Views, CBS (the CBS local public affairs program) appearance: http://miami.cbslocal.com/video/7019241-news-views-gloria-romero-roses/

Of course, there are many more.

-- Eggsofamerica 2:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not sold. All of the above are recent coverage of her candidacy. If she's not notable outside of that, we should redirect to the election article. If she's elected, then an article on her only is appropriate. Arbor8 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's debatable that this article meets guidelines set down under Politician notability, but I believe it does. Point 2 defines notability as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". While I can see disagreement on this point, I believe this point is met. Point 3, however, says that they can meet the "primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I don't believe there can be any debate that Romero Roses satisfies this point. Breaking down by Wiki's own definitions:

Significant coverage: Romero Roses is covered in detail in multiple local and national publications, thus requiring not independent research to verify the bulk of the facts in the article as written.

Reliable: Even if there is debate on any one publication, several of the above cited sources would meet this critera--CBS, ABC, NBC, Miami Herald, Roll Call, the Hill, News Service of Florida, etc etc.

Sources: There is a wide variety of secondary sources cited above that are independent and trustworthy.

Independent of subject: obviously the case. Multiple news publications.

Presumed: obviously this is what we're debating, but I believe at the very least we have a solid presumption of notability. Reading through reasons to exclude a topic that is presumed notable, I cannot find any violations.

Again, this article address a major party, establishment-backed candidate, in a critical political seat in the upcoming election that has received significant amounts of coverage, including international sources (in Colombia, these are in Spanish and I did not include them). --Eggsofamerica (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen several articles about Romero Roses and an interview she did with the local ABC affiliate. The major political groups backing her campaign speak to the validity of her candidacy. -- Greatbritt 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including (but not limited to): [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN. Article can be restored if she becomes the Democratic nominee. Bgwhite (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 K.O.D.. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Show Me a God[edit]

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

This track is not sufficiently notable independently from the artist who originally recorded it. I'd propose a deletion or simply merge the relevant information back into the artist or album's page. Note that this appears to have been a download-only release which did not chart significantly in any country. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to K.O.D., the song's parent album, as WP:NSONGS suggests regarding songs that don't warrant individual articles. I'm finding only trivial mentions in reliable sources for the song, within articles/reviews of the album. Gongshow ^Talk 09:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 02:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 13:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Cahill encounter[edit]

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

Claim of alien abduction with no assertion of notability over the myriad other claims; poorly sourced with much WP:Original research and speculation tacked on; no significant online coverage of the incident from WP:Reliable sources. As the article itself notes: "It was strange that this abduction is very little known. No press got ever involved in the case, and the only investigating team is the PRA, led by John Auchlettl". Proposed deletion contested by page creator. Scopecreep (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the only two references currently in the article are to self-published sources, it is mentioned in reliable sources here here and here. St Anselm (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suspect that this is going to be kept, although personally I think that if there's going to be an article on this subject then it'd be easiest to torch what we have and rewrite from scratch. The tone is appalling, the sources provided by the author are incredibly flimsy and it reads like there's no authoritative information on the subject. Which there might not be, after all, given that this might as well be a ghost story that someone and their acquaintances made up one day. As a gauge of quality, it might be worth comparing this article to that of the Rendlesham Forest incident. The author removed the prod tag asserting that Google returned a large number of hits for "kelly cahill". Google's hit counter is notoriously unreliable: for example, it estimated 418,000 hits for "kelly cahill encounter" but ran out non-duplicates after 524. Besides, although notability is a necessary attribute for the subject of an article, it is not sufficient in itself to justify one. What is also needed is reliable sources, and these seem few on the ground.

My gut instinct says delete and wait to see if anyone decides to build a sturdier article as a replacement (if that's possible), but then my gut is a deletionist: an article like this could be a problem. Brammers (talk/c) 08:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article presents this nonsense as having probably happened. WP:TNT is in order, even if this is somehow notable. The first and third of the books StAnselm found appear to regard alien abductions as being factual, so they're no reliable sources in my view even if a reputable publisher was silly enough to publish them. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt a rewrite is possible. This is just one woman's made-up story that got zero coverage in mainstream media. I agree with Nick that books presenting alien abductions as fact don't count as reliable sources. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the lack of independent reliable sources that discuss that event from a neutral point of view. If they exist, a rewrite is possible. Cavarrone (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dandenong Foothills Encounter. The big mistake i've made here is to create an article which is already in the Afc. Kj plma (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or best be Rewritten. It is mentioned in the revision history here [24] and there it cite a news [25] written by 1999 News World Communications, Inc. and 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning, pointing out that the famous ufologists Robert Swiatek and Budd Hopkins knew this case. Kj plma (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you understand that "famous ufologists" hold no credibility here? The whole article was rubbish. I don't know where you got the content from, but I've seen little content in Wikipedia that was worse. The geography was deplorable (I fixed the state. You were out by 2,000km!), and writing it as if it definitely happened is just wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My reasons are above. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it stays, it will have to be rewritten, not according to UFOlogist publications but from the (mostly Australian) news coverage, which treats the story of Kelly Cahill (apparently not her real name, she refuses to provide her real identity) much less enthusiastically. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nick-D, wide-eyed UFO marks cannot be relied upon as indicators of notability - if they enjoy the story, they're likely to report it as factual and significant. I see no evidence of wider media coverage, impact upon popular consciousness or even perceived importance among paranormal investigators. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article about university professor had been badly vandalized. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Logan[edit]

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

This article is clearly not factual. Hstevens86 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Fails to assert notability, also patent nonsense. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Correction, speedied as per G3 Hoax. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious G3, as per above. Acebulf (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naum Shusterman[edit]

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

Non-notable field grade officer. Enough work went into this one that I wanted to put it to discussion. A nice bio, but no assertion of notability. EricSerge (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Admittedly there may be a WP:BIAS issue with non-English/non-online sources, but I don't see coverage that passes WP:BIO. Note that the Red Banner does not earn him a WP:SOLDIER pass, even though it was for a time the nation's highest military decoration, because it's unlikely he earned it while it bore that distinction; the Order of Lenin superseded it as the highest in 1930, when Shusterman had only just enlisted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Order of Lenin is a technical WP:SOLDIER pass; thanks for finding it, Andrei. However, I'm still concerned by the lack of coverage of this individual. Are there any secondary sources that discuss him in detail? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Upon further research of archival documents, it was discovered that Shusterman did, in fact, receive an Order of Lenin in 1941. This has been added into the article, and I believe this earns him a WP:SOLDIER pass. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I do not speak Russian but I can run google translate, it seems that the reference points to the top page of an archive website. Is there any way that you can point the reference to the record of his award? EricSerge (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the image of the archival document from the awarding list is located here: http://podvig-naroda.ru/filter/filterimage?path=Z/001/033-0682524-0445/00000753.jpg&id=10937664&id=10937664&id1=3d051e3eb2ee5e248eb0613e9203f8a5, but it is an image, with the text in Russian. I could translate it, if you wish. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I can assume good faith on the reference, and it is obvious upon cursory examination that the doc is about Shusterman and the Орден "Ленина" while also mentioning his receipt of the Орден "Краснoй Звезды". EricSerge (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have translated the document into English and it can be viewed here, or on the article. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly decorated WP:SOLDIER Unlikely to have seen a delete proposal for a holder of equivalent medals in the US or UK Commonwealth forces. Nomination appears to be WP:BIAS Arjayay (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article is one of 581,300 recipients of the Order of the Red Banner and 1,000 three time recipients of the Order of the Red Star, which also served as a long service award, which if I read the award's article right he would have received two of those for long service. At the time of nomination there was no mention of his receipt of the Order of Lenin in the article. I can assure you if it were a British Lieutenant Colonel with similar decorations who did not have notability outside of having a few gongs, I would have nominated. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the subject of the article recieved seven orders, seven campaign medals and at least ten jubilee medals. How you can refer to these awards as "a few gongs", particularly when you consider the amount of discrimination against Jews in the USSR, I do not know. Secondly, Shusterman recieved at least two of his three Orders of the Red Star before 1944, i.e. NOT as long service awards. This is evident in the image in the body of the article, of the 43rd Soviet FAR in 1943. Shusterman, standing on the right, is clearly wearing two Orders of the Red Star.Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake on the Orders of the Red Star. Your reference to "seven campaign medals and at least ten jubilee medals", are been there done that medals and do not confer notability. Those medals were awarded by millions. In time of war there are many heroic soldiers, but many do not meet the community's requirements concerning notability. Military records are great as reliable sources documenting awards, but they are not the secondary sources that we look for in biographies. To give you an example, the Distinguished Service Order is a pretty prestigious award. However, to make the notable recipient list on that article's page you have to have received four of them. Is Shusterman the most decorated Jewish officer of the Soviet Air Force in World War II? That would make him notable, but that assertion would need a reliable source. EricSerge (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the medals and orders were awarded to millions. I was not arguing Shusterman's notability when I mentioned "seven campaign medals and at least ten jubilee medals", I was simply pointing out that it is at the very least disrespectful to refer to a veteran of the Great Patriotic War as "having a few gongs". Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:SOLDIER as the recpient of a notable award, nice work finding the details! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of his effectively campaign medals make him notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but his Order of Lenin entitles him to a WP:SOLDIER pass. WombatIce1828 (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "pass", it's a presumption of notability that needs ratification by adequate coverage under the General Notability Guidelines ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, most users contributing to this page believe that is IS a pass, and secondly, there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this person clearly passes WP:SOLDIER, and I believe that this makes him notable.WombatIce1828 (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable and highly decorated officer who clearly meets WP:SOLDIER. Possible WP:BIAS issue with nomination. 203.48.59.76 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets the guidelines for inclusion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of free fan conventions[edit]

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

This list only contains one item, and was a contested PROD. I took a quick scan through the list of anime conventions for one and found no other free conventions there. In any case I feel like this is a case of WP:Overcategorization and possible WP:OR with no reliable third party sources to back up a free convention claim. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Delete — Article lacks sufficient data to be considered for inclusion, has not seen any recent revision. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one item, no proof that more can be added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The price aspect makes the effect promotional. Even if there was more than one convention listed, it would still be something of a directory. The See Also of the piece demonstrates that there is already extensive list coverage of regular conventions. Why is price important? Why is Zero the magic price point? Carrite (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There used to be several listed there, but most have been removed. I disagree with the price aspect making it promotional, but that isn't even relevant here. There's no need for the list if there is only one item on it. That's the only thing that matters here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Just please put this list out of its misery already. Whether it currently only has one item or had more in the past, the fact remains that this is nothing more than indiscriminate list of information or a directory. The fact that it currently only has one item is merely the final nail in the coffin for this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "list" of one (which is of dubious notability anyhow). coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J P Vishwajit Mustard[edit]

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

Product not important Mjs1991 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Speedy under A7, for a product/company non-notable. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete contested/Neutral It has won an award [26] and I believe notability could be argued, and therefore, should be given a chance to be argued. A Wikipedian with some knowledge of Hindu could perhaps find more information, and then truly assess its notability. Acebulf (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothing significant has been found regarding this in any reliable source. This Indian Express link also doesn't help. BTW Acebulf, what it has to do with "Hindu"? — Bill william compton^Talk 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 current notability guidelines for schools presume notability for high schools, as they are generally considered notable enough in their individual communities. English-language sources on a Malaysian high school would be few and far between; this does not indicate a lack of notability. (non-admin closure) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Tunku Panglima Besar[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic article about a Malaysian high school that gives no indication of its notability. A quick google search does not turn up any reliable sources which could be used to establish notability or expand the article. Applicable policies include WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:GNG/WP:NRVE, and maybe WP:PROMOTION. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 02:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly in severe need of cleanup, but consensus is that all verified secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can it be verified if there are no references? Also I'm not entirely sure it's a secondary school; that was my best guess.... --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 11:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the Google search you yourself linked to you'll see enough information to verify its existence. That's enough for an article on a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google searches is a known argument NOT to use in AfDs.ZachFoutre (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nobody is using any such argument. Perhaps you'd better reread. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not have significant coverage in more than one secondary verified source to satisfy WP:GNGZachFoutre (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Account created a short time ago solely to vote for deletion in school AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your point being?
    - My point clearly being that using an account solely to try to delete articles is disruptive and not constructive. In addition to your current investigation for sockpuppetry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm commenting on schools' articles - as are you. There is no rule against that. My aim is not solely "to try to delete articles", as my edit history demonstrates. However, I do notice that most of your recent edits have been personal attacks. ZachFoutre (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Not personal attacks. Just drawing other editors' attention to the fact that you're a suspected sockpuppet with an account created solely to comment on school AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Blue Coat School. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2012 (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) 00:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With help from Google Translate the links presented in the Google News search provided by the AfD templates at the top of this page confirm that this is a high school and show that it is notable enough to be selected for a corporate program to promote the study of English. The Google Books search gives hits in The Who's who, Malaysia and Singapore that seem to correspond to the earlier names of the school, though it's a bit difficult to tell for me as a non-Malay speaker because part of the name appears to mean something like "Great General" or "Great Commander", according to Google Translate. Notable by GNG, in any case, unless someone is going to claim that a school mentioned in national news isn't covered in greater depth by local media that isn't web-accessible or all the other places that a school would be independently documented. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article nominated before by the same editor; the result is the same, even more forcefully so. See WP:NOTAGAIN. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zia McCabe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

She is not established as notable for a Wikipedia page. LF (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Only issue is whether there should be an independent article or this merged into the band article. That is a routine editing decision, not an AFD matter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person has received significant coverage in reliable sources; the topic passes WP:GNG:
- "Alls Dandy For The Bohemian Babe…". MTV Australia. May 23, 2011. Retrieved May 17, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
- "Class A act". Sydney Morning Herald. July 25 2003. Retrieved May 17, 2012. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Well more than a hundred Google News hits? It looks like WP:BEFORE was not followed by the nominator if there isn't even any nomination rationale dealing with that. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator here is the same person who last year nominated all of the other The Dandy Warhols members' articles — Peter Holmström (AfD discussion), Eric Hedford (AfD discussion), and Brent DeBoer (AfD discussion) — for deletion. Xe appears to be using fallacious "If article X then article Y." reasoning rather than looking at individual subjects on their individual merits. Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Individual notable, as per credible searches. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, poorly-researched nomination which clearly meets any and all relevant guidelines for inclusion. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With all the "delete" !voters doing "heel-face turns", there are no longer any arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pugachev Airport[edit]

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

There is no any reliable sources, which say, that such airport exists. If you see satellite image, you can see, that there is no airfield there: there is only road and channel. Dinamik (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - That isn't a "channel"; that appears to be a freshly-blacktopped runway; and if you zoom in "Pugachev Airport" is marked on Google Maps. However, that isn't enough to be verifiable through reliable sources, and I can't find anything that mentions it beyond the map image itself, which isn't enough. No prejudice against recreation if sources can be found later, and if they can be found during this AfD then I'll instantly change my !vote. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ have to agree with The Bushranger to delete pending a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Per verifiability, our fundamental inclusion criterion is verifiability, and not truth. There may be a Pugachev Airport at the location noted, but I cannot find any reliable sources that verify this let alone significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I'm not wholly convinced the sources we have a reliable, but I suspect sources exist to satisfy veribiality, however I'm not sure if it is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a case where the gazetteer part of Wikipedia's purpose kicks in - public-use airports that can be verified through reliable sources are notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am aware of that argument, but I don't agree that automatically should mean the inclusion of every pieve of land that aircraft land at. -- Whpq (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a search in Cyrillic finds this local website which describes how sad the local citizens were when the helicopters of the 626-th Pugachev helicopter regiment left for the last time in Oct 2011, and this Wikimapia entry which says "The airfield is now disbanded Pugachev helicopter regiment." There is also ru:Пугачёв_(аэродром) which is unsourced and evidently out of date, as it says the helicopter regiment is there; it also says local airlines use it. Sourcing is not the best, but enough to establish that this is not a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. JohnCD has shown evidence that this airport does indeed exist. More discussion is needed on the issue of "is it notable". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added a search template for "Пугачёвского аэродрома" at the top of this AfD which gives a couple of Google News hits that appear to disprove the nominator's suspicion that the topic of the article does not exist. (I can't read Russian well and I'm relying on Google translate to understand the articles but they are definitely talking about events related to a Pugachev Airport.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stub article for an extant airport, albeit decommissioned. Existence is verified. Would WP be better off with or without this piece? The former, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nice work by JohnCD to find sources; so changing to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Cross Arcade[edit]

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

No notability found for this shopping center. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete — Speedy A7, non-notable company C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changing vote to Keep substantial coverage exists. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails to meet notability requirements for shopping centres, significant coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless notability can be demonstrated, this should be deleted Ankh.Morpork 16:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New sources have been added by an editor and expanded. I'm not sure if the sources show notability, but the article looks much better. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Understandable nomination as the article was in poor shape and didn't look like showing notability, but the improvements by Bilby show it is notable due to meeting WP:GNG. Several articles solely about the shopping centre in The Advertiser and even gets mentions in The Age and The New York Times. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's been around for over 40 years and its creation in the 1960s was widely covered in the press as was the 1980s redevelopment. While much news about the arcade is advertising and fluff, there are a great many articles that are independent and far more than peripheral mentions. There is discussion of it in publications by the Adelaide city council, also independent of the owners. Unfortunately most many useful sources of it predate the internet and so are not googleable- Peripitus (Talk) 12:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - New writings emphasize qualifications towards WP:GNG, sounds less like a non-notable shopping location. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 03:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't want to comment earlier, as while I added some sources, I wanted to look at the likelihood of more existing first. There are a couple of issues to mention, I guess. First, it was a good call bringing it to AfD, as the original version didn't show notability at all. In Adelaide there are a couple of arcades that I would regard as clearly notable, a large number which clearly aren't, and a few which I wasn't sure about. City Cross Arcade was in the third group. Part of the difficulty is the name - it is referred to as City Cross Arcade, City Cross and City Cross Shopping Centre, so searching was trickier than normal. The other main problem is that most of the major issues for the arcade predate online archives, but I think Peripitus is correct in that there will be decent coverage from the 1960s and mid 1980s. That said, some of the sources (not all) that I was able to find do meet the GNG - especially those around the sale in 2000/2001 and the subsequent redevelopment, and they pointed to others which will be useful when confirmed. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kinnikuman characters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianman[edit]

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

Although the series is notable, I found no coverage for this character. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't notice the list of characters. Maybe this could be merged somehow. SL93 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kinnikuman characters. Whats there to merge? On the character page I see: "Canadianman (Yonehiko Kitagawa) - A Canadian Chōjin. He was used in some way in almost every story arc after his introduction, making him probably the most recognized "Background Choujin" in the series" The description is short and to the point and can be improved on it. Throwing in WP:OR from this article into a character article that is already weighed down by it wont help but hurt the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Gwern (contribs) 16:42 23 May 2012 (GMT)
Redirect to List of Kinnikuman characters. A character from a series whose real-world notability is not establish by reliable sources should not have his own article. A mention in the character page should be it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Riposte (Quebec)[edit]

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

Delete - No independent verification of notability, both sources are linked to the magazine's parent organizations Downwoody (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to International Marxist Tendency#Canada. Doesn't seem independently notable. --

Colapeninsula (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment the brackets make it an unlikely search term so I think deletion and pointing to International Marxist Tendency#Canada from the disambiguation page at La Riposte would be preferable to a redirect. Downwoody (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cood point. I don't think a redirect's essential, although I don't see it doing any harm. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources confirming notability. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This thing has been open long enough: non-consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SP ContaPlus[edit]

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

Another unnotable accounting software for which I couldn't find any RS. Although it might be notable ("Nowadays, ContaPlus is the "accounting standard" in Spain with more than one million customers.") it's completely unreferenced and this cited sentence might be added by a PR agent. mabdul 11:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2012 (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) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are entire books about it that are reliable and independent of the subject - [27], [28], [29], and [30]. There is also [31]. SL93 (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those wouldn't count as either reliable sources or indicators of notability via coverage - they're simply guidebooks (two of them are the same) and for all I can tell, may be connected to the software publisher. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability not demonstrated via multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable sources. Note that the Spanish Wikipedia article claims a more modest 600,000 customers (as opposed to a million in our one). It also has no working citations. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus about whether to keep, merge (including where to) or keep. The latter options can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 16:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Slave Memorial[edit]

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

This unreferenced article is about an unremarkable proposal. There's not enough material on the subject to create (and cite) a reasonably sized article. | ^help _dןǝɥ | 15:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unreferenced, eh? I didn't know that one link is not a reference. Regardless, there is material out there that could at least expand the article a bit more. Also, I find it hard to believe that this is an unremarkable proposal, as many of the monuments (and frankly almost everything) in that city have been built due to persistence, with many things not surrounding their first proposal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we might as well nuke the Adams Memorial page, as it to is short and unreferenced, possibly unremarkable as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a proposed memorial that got no traction. There was some news coverage at the time but no sustained coverage indicating that the proposal has had no lasting effect or impact. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2012 (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) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Washington, D.C. or some other appropriate related article, maybe into the History or Architecture sections. It's difficult to attain notability on its own as a proposal but the fact that there is Google News coverage going back a quarter of a century, indicating genuine interest in such a project that gets it too close to notability to throw away. The links and text there now would combine into a good single sentence which the editors of the new article can decide whether they want to expand or delete. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How is there a quarter century of news coverage? This proposal is from 2003. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, the 1987 Google News hit is for a National Slave Memorial in Baltimore. Well, in that case I could go either way - merge a sentence mentioning it into the DC article, or delete it. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- It is currently just a proposal and should it be implemented, a new article can be created.Ankh.Morpork 16:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. If the memorial got no traction or coverage beyond some short-term news stories, there is no basis for an article. Merging with Washington D.C. does not strike me as viable, since an article on a major city will become burdened with irrelevant information if it starts mentioning all sorts of things that aren't there, but merely proposed without going anywhere. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with National Museum of African American History and Culture based on the last entry in the Google Scholar search page Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm assuming you are referring to this where it is a one line mention that the museum was favoured over the memorial proposal. That really just seems like adding trivia to an article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No not trivial. As the news stories and scholarly references make clear, its part of the story about how the early 21st century United States attempts to deal with this part of its past in the present and for the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage makes the memorial a news event. The academic coverage is a single line -- one line only in one paper. I'd have to scour the news coverage, but I don't recall that there was coverage in the news indicating that the museum was chose in favour of the memorial as stated in the academic paper. So to me, that's a rather tenuous link between the museum and the memorial. And as for it being a "part of the story about how the early 21st century United States attempts to deal with this part of its past in the present and for the future", I failed to see any such analysis of that in the single line of the academic paper. For all we know, the proposal failed to pass because the other politicians simply hated the guy who brought it forward. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news commentary is about both the fact of the legislation, its supporters, and the issue of propriety. The scholarly commentary is about the fact of the legislation and what happened to it within the context of the purpose of the memorial. The matter is the subject of multiple RS and is thus notable within Wikipedia standards (also, as a matter of fact, it is mentioned in the scholarship more than once). The fact that there are multiple RS is not surprising for legislation on this matter. This being a deletion discussion, the fact that it is notable is the salient point (how we treat that notability by merger or keep - and improve - is the issue) but the unsourced points raised for deletion are rebutted by the fact of multiple RS. The RS show that it has been remarked upon (thus it is remarkable); it has gone somewhere in the RS (thus there is traction).Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was primarily about the target article for the recommendation of the merge. None of what you have said justifies merging to the museum article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article needs tagging and/or trimming, but there is certainly no consensus for deletion. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Muller[edit]

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

No evidence that Muller meets the notability criteria. The article on Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations states Assistant Secretaries-General are often deputies within Departments or Programmes, reporting to their respective Under-Secretary-General - this would not appear to be sufficiently high enough to be inherantly notable, and Muller does not appear to meet notability on other grounds. Apart from the Star-News coverage for his obit, the other coverage I could find is minor (along the "Muller, former ASG will be talking at a meeting", kind of thing). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Incidentally, the two other references do not appear to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The New York Open Centre Honorees reference has his name, but that is linked to the Wikipedia article; the NAPF reference does include his biography, but this in itself is not sufficient to show notability. The entirety of the references do not add up to notability. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robert Muller's entry - it is being updated. There is plenty of information that shows Robert Muller is a notable person.

Shortly before the page was designated for deletion almost all contents had been removed with an insufficient explanation. "Removing puffery/CV style writing” doesn't explain anything.

We don't understand why the following information that was on the page before:

Robert Muller was born March 11, 1923 in Weismes Belgium, raised in the Alsace-Lorraine region in France.

During his youth he experienced constant political and cultural turmoil. Robert Muller knew the horrors of World War II, of being a refugee, of Nazi occupation and imprisonment. During the war he was a member of the French Resistance. After the war he returned home and earned a Doctorate of Law from the University of Strasbourg. In 1948 he entered and won an essay contest on how to govern the world, the prize of which was an internship at the newly created United Nations.

Dr. Muller devoted the next 40 years of his life behind the scenes at the United Nations focusing his energies on world peace. He rose through the ranks at the UN to the official position of Assistant-Secretary-General. He has been called the "Philosopher" and "Prophet of Hope" of the United Nations.

Robert Muller created a "World Core Curriculum" and is known throughout the world as the "father of global education." There are 29 Robert Muller schools around the world with more being established each year. The "World Core Curriculum" earned him the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education in 1989.

During Dr. Muller's active "retirement" he was Chancellor of the University for Peace created by the United Nations in demilitarized Costa Rica. He is the recipient of the Albert Schweitzer International Prize for the Humanities and the Eleanor Roosevelt Man of Vision Award.

In addition to his duties at the University, he devoted time to his writings and was an internationally acclaimed, multi-lingual speaker and author of fourteen books published in various languages.

At the prompting of many of his friends, admirers and non-governmental organizations Robert Muller was a candidate as a global citizen in 1996 for the post of Secretary General of the United Nations.

Robert Muller died September 20, 2010. ”

was replaced with this:

Robert Muller (born 1923 in Belgium, died September 20, 2010) was an international civil servant with the United Nations. Assistant Secretary-General for 40 years, his ideas about world government, world peace and spirituality led to the increased representation of religions in the UN, especially of New Age Movement. He was known by some as "the philosopher of the United Natons"

The removed text was substantial and filled in essential information about Robert and his life. What was put in its place is not a fair description of Robert Muller.

We don't understand, either, what was the reason for removing the list of the books and references and only keeping two of them and not the rest?

What was the reason not to at least keep some of the text that was on the page?

We would like to enter some information back without “puffery”. We will add more references to better demonstrate Robert Mullers notability. The short info about Robert is essential and the list of the books published by Robert helps demonstrate Robert's notability. Additional references will also add to citations of Robert's notability. A more fair decision can be made with this additional material.

Here are some links to websites in support of the claim that Robert Muller is a notable person:

Thank you for helping us provide more substantial information to demonstrate Robert Muller is a notable person.Kaczdan (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, a quick reply (I've been awake for the last 38 hours, and need to get to sleep!) In my opinion, the removal of the material from the article was quite correct - the content was unencylopedic, and "puffery" in nature. I note that you have said "we..." a lot - you are obviously representing someone, presumably the Muller organisation - and would appear to want to use Wikipedia to promote the (worthy) values of Muller. That is not Wikipedia's purpose.

The references you provided do not demonstrate adequately (in my opinion) the notability of Muller. They are either personal opinion pieces (such as the UN Memorial speech), or from sources which would not appear to meet the independence requirement or reliability requirement:

Secretary-General's remarks at Memorial Service for Robert Muller
- Personal opinion, from the organisation he was connected with (the UN). Not an independent source
Good Morning World Blog
- Muller's own blog, this is a memorial wall. Not an independent source, and blogs are generally not considered reliable sources
Goi Peace Foundation
- An organisation with no article (Goi, Goi Peace Foundation) on Wikipedia, and no indication that either the organisation or their awards are recognised as conferring notability
World Harmony Run
- An organisation whose article World Harmony Run I have proposed for deletion, as I see no evidence that it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, or as a reliable source here
East Beach
- As the publisher of some of Muller's works, they are not independent. Also, the bio here seems to be the bio found elsewhere for Muller - presumably a standard one issued by Muller/Muller's organisation - similar to a press release in effect, and so not independent
UN Online article
- Written by Muller (so not independent) on a Robert Muller Schools International websiet
Peace Pilgrim
- 2 short paragraphs mention him in a total of 4 sentences - not the quantity/quality of coverage required ("Robert Muller, former assistant secretary general of the United Nations and chancellor emeritus of the UN University for Peace, suggested the idea of recognizing Peace Pilgrim's life work for peace by having a life-size bronze statue of her walking placed on the grounds of the University. Instead of honoring military generals, Muller has tried to honor and lift up the work of those who have given their lives for peace." ... "Robert Muller collected soil from Pennsylvania, the U.S. state of 'Brotherly Love', and sand from Santa Barbara, California, from the shores of the Pacific Ocean, the 'Peaceful Ocean', to sprinkle at the feet of Peace Pilgrim's statue on the day of the statue's dedication. He encouraged others to join him, bringing soil from around the world, as prayers for world peace.")
SGI Quarterly
- An article written by Muller (so not independent) published in an publication which doesn't even get a mention in passing on the publishing organisation's article.

All in all, I see no evidence of his notabily sufficient to persuade me that I was wrong to nominate this for deletion. Others may feel differently, which is why we have this community discussion to make the decision, based on the consensus. And now, after 39 hours awake, I really must get to bed! Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PhantomSteve, ~~Please Keep.~~ I posted the new, updated information on the Robert's page for you to see. Please have a look to see if it is acceptable from your point of view. If not, what changes you suggest? There are tens of thousands of websites on the Net referring to Dr. Muller. It is enough to google with the search term “Dr. Robert Muller” (in quotation marks) to see that (447,000 results). Some of those websites refer to other people. I checked the first ten pages. More than 60% of them refer to Robert Muller we are talking about here. Your opinion so far was based on incomplete info. It is not your role to search for the information yourself. That's understandable. I am convinced though that you will change your opinion based on this new info, simply because the notability of a person with tens of thousands websites referring to him can't be denied. As for the article in Wikipedia I am doing my best to improve it according to the Wikipedia requirements. I will appreciate very much help and any and all constructive opinions to improve it further, from people like you, who know much more how the Wikipedia works than I do. Thanks for your time.Kaczdan (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Besides being very popular (tens of thousands of websites referring to him) Dr. Muller meets the following notability criteria:

He is a person significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.
He has received a well-known and significant award or honor (UNESCO Prize for Peace Education, Albert Schweitzer International Prize for the Humanities, Eleanor Roosevelt Man of Vision Award, Honored by the New York Open Center for his "Lifetime Dedication to World Peace and Global Education").
He has been nominated for another significant award or honor (was a candidate as a global citizen in 1996 for the post of Secretary General of the United Nations )
He has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the field of world peace (Co-founded the University for Peace in demilitarized Costa Rica and began his active retirement from the UN as the first Chancellor of the University).Kaczdan (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vote more than once. Only one vote per user is allowed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 18 May 2012 (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) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some external links (below) to the article with more information on the life and work of Dr. Robert Muller

PeaceDay Global Broadcast : Tribute to Robert Muller | http://peaceday.tv/drmullertribute
Free Press Release : Dr. Robert Muller Memorial| http://www.free-press-release.com/news-dr-robert-muller-memorial-to-be-carried-live-on-internet-1285350194.html
World Harmony Run : Legacies of Peace of Dr. Robert Muller | http://www.worldharmonyrun.org/un_initiatives/year_rapprochement_of_cultures/iyrc_conclusion/robert_muller_legacies
Aquarius Papers : One of the Greatest Peacemakers of the 20th Century| http://www.aquariuspapers.com/astrology/2010/09/dr-robert-muller-rip-to-one-of-the-greatest-peacemakers-of-the-20th-century.html
WNRF : Robert Muller, The Millennium Maker | http://www.wnrf.org/cms/robertmuller.shtml
Humanitad : A Proper Earth Government | http://www.humanitad.org/team/23/
HappinessClub : Interview with Robert Muller | http://www.happinessclub.com/pages/rmuller.html

Kaczdan (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- None of these are appropriate sources. Please read WP:RS in order to find out what kinds of sources we consider acceptable here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looks borderline notable from RS coverage. Article is poorly sourced though. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the sources are reliable. They may not be mainstream, but they are not extreme, either. Not being mainstream doesn't make them unreliable. I have always believed, too, that Wikipedia is here to reflect the world community as it is, not only what is accepted and/or promoted by the mainstream media.Kaczdan (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Phantomsteve that the article, as it was on 20:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC), qualified for deletion. The article has been rewritten to meet the criteria set by Wikipedia. It is a completely different article now.

Postscript: Besides the reasons listed in my post on May 17, Dr. Muller meets another notability criteria: He has been nominated multiple times for a significant award or honor: He was nominated multiple times for the Nobel Peace Prize.Kaczdan (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having quickly looked through the article as it now is, I am still not convinced that Muller meets the criteria for inclusion. The sources on the whole appear to be either from press releases or from organisations directly connected with Muller - or they merely mention him in a list of names. A couple of the sources consist primarily of an interview with Muller which, though interesting, is effectively self-promotion/press-release-ish. For clarity, I still feel this article should be deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Muller's notability can't be denied (he meets several notability criteria, as indicated in my previous posts), the references are there to confirm that the facts listed in the short info about him are true, and the external links are there to shed more light on Dr. Muller's life and personality. Kaczdan (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)Kaczdan (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria[edit]

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

No evidence that this organisation, while worthy, meets notability criteria. All the references are either self-published, or very minor (i.e. a single sentence). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Redirect~~ to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, of which this appears to be a subsidiary. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to "keep", see below. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites several peer-reviewed journals and relies only on Global Fund references when citing specific Board decisions and background information on the initiative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC) — Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The AMFm is currently one of the most-debated initiatives in global health - it has been covered by many independent and reliable sources. However, many of these sources are themselves quite biased (pro and con), especially when compared to the AMFm website. As the author of the AMFm Wikipedia article, I opted to use the AMFm website as the reference for the key events and descriptions of the model. However, I will re-edit to add more independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New reference just added: as part of the Copenhagen Consensus, a panel of Nobel Laureate economists concluded that AMFm was one of the best investments to advance global welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarus7994 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 May 2012 (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) 00:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the points raised by Icarus7994: I appreciate your passion for the subject. But this subject just doesn't seem to have the required significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Looking at the 22 references provided at the article: the press release from the Copenhagen Consensus does in fact mention the AMFm, but it seems to be the only independent mention. Of the other 21 references, 12 are from non-independent sources: 8 to the Global Fund and another 4 to the Roll Back Malaria Partnership, which also seems to have an originating or managing relationship to AMFm and could also be a target for a redirect. 3 references are to peer reviewed journals, 1 to a book, 2 to the World Health Organization, and 1 to a press release from the National Academy of Science, but they all appear to be general information about malaria; it doesn't look as if any of them mention the Affordable Medicines Facility-malaria. The remaining 2 references are dead links. My opinion remains that this organization or initiative or plan or however you would describe it is not independently notable, but should be redirected and merged to either The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria or Roll Back Malaria Partnership. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I will go back and update the entry with more links from independently verifiable sources. Off the top of my head, the AMFm has been covered in both the New York Times and Nature - both of those are high impact factor and should address some of the notoriety and independent coverage concerns. I will also make sure the existing references are more explicitly linked to the content on AMFm, instead of malaria in general. I appreciate your interest in this - it is only making the article stronger. --Icarus7994 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you can find significant coverage by sources like the New York Times and Nature, that will make a strong case for this project's notability. You might also want to clarify its relationship to the Roll Back Malaria Partnership. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a quick look at [Google News Archive]. That shows 41 hits, however, a look through them seems to show that they are all basically press releases about events the organisation are involved with, or press releases about their projects. I couldn't find any NYT coverage, and unfortunately the article in Nature about them does not appear to be available online, so I cannot judge the content. I do note that the only result from Nature is a letter of complaint that Nature's article did "not provide a balanced picture of the evidence pertaining to the proposed approach adopted by AMFm". I can still find no evidence that this organisation meets the criteria for a stand-alone article. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments (noted: clarify RBM connection). I have not had time to re-work the article this week but will try to do so over the weekend. However, in the meantime, here are the links to the NY Times and Nature articles I was planning to include: [NY Times] and [Nature1] and [Nature2]. Unfortunately I don't have access to the 2010 Nature article that the letter of complaint references either. For me, the 41 hits on Google News (which is not even a complete list, since at least the NY times and Nature articles do not appear in it) do demonstrate notoreity and coverage by independent sources. How many other Wikipedia article subjects have endorsement by two sets of Nobel laureates, coverage in the NY Times plus two of the top-10 impact factor journals (Lancet and Nature), and represent an investment of over 300 million USD in a way that has not been tried before? I believe there has likely been significant local press coverage of AMFm in the African countries where it has been implemented. Would it be helpful to include these as references as well (as long as they are available online)? Or should my focus be on peer-reviewed journal and international press? Thanks for your help! --Icarus7994 (talk) 08:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of establishing notability, your best evidence would be items from the international press and from major general-interest journals - as long as they are "substantial coverage" and not merely a mention or a technical report. It would also help the article if you could reduce the number of citations to the Global Fund itself, by replacing them with citations from third-party publications. Congratulations on your good research here, you have persuaded me to change my opinion to "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a quick search of the Financial Times and found quite a few AMFm mentions: [Financial Times] I will be sure to include these as references. --Icarus7994 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to Keep based on the new sources provided by Icarus7994, such as this one from Nature which I have added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the NYT item to the article as well. These two references by themselves are enough to establish notability IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Scottywong | confabulate _ 23:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joker venom[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, completely in-universe. It's time that the policy we're supposed to support gets applied even to DC & Marvel comics, despite the fanboi uproar this will no doubt engender. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I guess the fanbois are uproaring elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Joker (comics). This is a very important aspect of the Joker, a very notable comics character. JIP | Talk 06:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be notable, but if it's going to be WP:NOTABLE it needs to demonstrate it from sources. The same applies to the same large slab of unreferenced content, whether it's in one article or as part of another. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick search through Google Books of "Joker venom" and "Joker smilex" (the name in the movie) gives several authors discussing the relation of the Joker with poison [32], [33], [34] (this one even analyzes the moral responsibilities of poison used by an insane man), [35], [36], showing that the relation of the Joker with the smiley posion is notable. Diego (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for source is a serious process and shouldn't be reduced to merely listing all the times you get a hit with "joker" + "poison". Most of the sources only talk about poison as part of plot summaries and don't "discuss the subject in detail" (WP:GNG). Don't forget that to pass the notability guideline, sources have to be "more than a trivial mention".Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. The article is a work of 100% unsourced fiction. If someone would like to rewrite an article on this topic from reliable third party sources, be my guest. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article which lists the various appearances of a fictional weapon belonging to a fictional supporting character from a comicbook. The most this subject warrants is a mention in the Joker (comics) article (which it already has). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage from independent sources". Such coverage is absolutely non-existent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My position on such articles is that we should let the "fanboys" have their "cruft" as long as it's sourced and verifiable cruft but this article has no sources so it may be nothing but fan speculation so Delete without prejudice per Bloccyx or merge to Joker (comics) if anything in the article is sourcable. Note that batman.wikia.com has an article on the subject or I would recommend a transwiki. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced after 2 weeks of AfD, therefore failing WP:V and particularly WP:V#Notability. Sandstein 09:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect possible search term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Humongous Book of Dinosaurs[edit]

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

I only found trivial mentions for this book. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking through the google news archives, I see lots of articles about the book when it came out in 1997 that look like non-trivial mentions. It was also reviewed by Kirkus. The article's current state leaves much to be desired, but I think it can be built up with the available sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, having received significant coverage in reliable sources:

"Turning Up The Volumes On Dinos Publishers Book Their Seats On The 'Lost World' Express". New York Daily News. Retrieved May 17, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Book Buzz". Orlando Sentinel. May 25, 1997. Retrieved May 17, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)
"Fleshing out the beast: Artist uses fact and fantasy to re-create dinosaurs". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. May 12, 1997. Retrieved May 17, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has enough coverage; might be worth checking library journals too for other reviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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