< 21 May	23 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Floyd Mayweather vs. Shane Mosley[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability; there has been no follow up as to why this event is significant in any way. BearMan998 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A fight between two of the biggest names in the sport who are both multi-division champion that received world-wide coverage is clearly notable and I would argue meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. -- KTC (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I would argue the multiple nomination by BearMan998 of boxing fight articles as WP:POINT disruption as a result of deletion of UFC events articles. KTC (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Note - Based on the circumstances I would say your argument is fair and in good faith, however, your accusation is wrong in this case as I have read and reviewed WP:NOT and WP:EVENT after I made those comments and I am now in agreement that based on Wikipedia's policies as such articles are indeed not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, at least not standalone articles for such events and therefore should be removed. Everything that is stated in the notability guidelines states that these articles are not fit for inclusion. Besides, this fight itself already is summarized quite nicely on the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Shane Mosley articles. As for notability, it was notable for the time, but does it have enduring notability?BearMan998 (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is permanent. Dricherby (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:EVENT "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Additionally, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."BearMan998 (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this fight drew considerable attention (much more so than a typical fight) both before and after the fight. Boxing, as it is currently (dis)organized doesn't have meaningful championships. This fight was a de facto championship event since it featured two of the sports biggest names. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many news articles on this fight, more than routine reports, over a period of 6 months. The Steve 11:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in diverse reliable sources, and passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the tremendous coverage of the topic in reliable, third-party sources. →B music ian 12:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All sources listed are either a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source or WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event so it doesn't actually pass WP:GNG. BearMan998 (talk) 02:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 22:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Mayweather vs. Juan Manuel Marquez[edit]

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

This event fails WP:NOT and WP:EVENT as there is no demonstration or indication that the event has any enduring notability. BearMan998 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A fight between two of the biggest names in the sport who are both multi-division champion that received world-wide coverage is clearly notable and I would argue meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. -- KTC (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I would argue the multiple nomination by BearMan998 of boxing fight articles as WP:POINT disruption as a result of deletion of UFC events articles. KTC (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note - Based on the circumstances I would say your argument is fair and in good faith, however, your accusation is wrong in this case as I have read and reviewed WP:NOT and WP:EVENT after I made those comments and I am now in agreement that based on Wikipedia's policies as such articles are indeed not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, at least not standalone articles for such events and therefore should be removed. Everything that is stated in the notability guidelines states that these articles are not fit for inclusion. Besides, this fight itself already is summarized quite nicely on the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. and Juan Manuel Marquez articles. As for notability, it was notable when the event occurred, however, I fail to see this event as having enduring notability. BearMan998 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also review WP:NOTTEMPORARY: notability is permanent. Dricherby (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:EVENT "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Additionally, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." BearMan998 (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep ‣ I am personally bewildered by the popular fixation with spectator sports but WP:EVENT says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards..." and coverage such as the ESPN and NBC links currently in the article and copious Google Books and Google News hits for "Mayweather Marquez" searches show that this event was tediously analyzed and re-analyzed by media and authors the world over, utterly the opposite of "without further analysis or discussion". If the nominator has been submitting articles with similar levels of coverage to AfD en masse (and I say so without prejudice, having not investigated the other articles under AfD) this is edging into WP:SPEEDYKEEP territory. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 18:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in diverse reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All sources listed are either a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source or WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event so it doesn't actually pass WP:GNG. BearMan998 (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is patently untrue. I have added the search I described to the top of this AfD, a ((Find sources)) template for "Mayweather Marquez", and it returns hundreds of Google Books hits and thousands of Google News hits. You have not looked at more than a tiny fraction of them. Here's a 2012 book on marketing treating it as a notable event, for Pete's sake. Changing my !vote to Speedy Keep because this is a frivolous nomination. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then why don't you add these "sources" to the article in order to verify that this fight hold enduring notability? Saying all this doesn't improve the article at all. As it is, all sources within the article are either WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources or WP:ROUTINE coverage and there is nothing in the article to show that it demonstrates enduring notability. As a result, it is a candidate for deletion. BearMan998 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I initially refrained from expressing my suspicion that this nomination, and others made at the same time, were disuptive nominations of sporting events with world-wide enduring notability made in retaliation for previous deletions/mergers of articles about a very minority-interest pseudo-sport, but this discussion has convinced me that that suspicion was correct. You are simply ignoring the evidence that the world at large considers top-level professional boxing far more notable than your personal fanboyism. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the deletion of any articles failing the policies of Wikipedia and have placed votes to delete MMA articles as well including UFC 150 so take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Now with that said, this article does not demonstrate any enduring notability. BearMan998 (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also as for the claims that this fight generated hundreds of Google Books hits, you might want to actually take a look at those hits and you'll find that they're all mostly irrelevant hits. As for the thousands of Google News hits, those are all WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources or WP:ROUTINE coverage of the event. BearMan998 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that no one is adding the sources that you yourself linked to via the ((find sources)) template at the top of this AfD when you created it, BearMan998, and the reason that the specialized search links are created in the course of the default AfD nomination process, is that AfD is not cleanup. This isn't a venue for some editors to goad other editors into working on particular articles, it's a place to evaluate and discuss deletion arguments and articles on their merits.
Wikipedia's concept of notability is a property of the topic itself, not the article: a poorly-written or poorly-sourced article at Wikipedia does not make the topic of that article non-notable. And as Dricherby pointed out to you above, notability is not temporary, so you can stop talking about "enduring" notability as no one is going to accept the ad hoc amendments to Wikipedia principles you've contrived and are trying to apply here to get your way. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You act as if I am making up the concept of enduring notability. Per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." BearMan998 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way you answered that comment exemplifies your basic approach here, to ignore everything that does not get you what you want. As if the only sources available are routine news reporting like the sports scores mentioned in WP:ROUTINE. Yes, you are making things up. Please throw your tantrum somewhere else. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:10, 29 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) →TSU ^tp* 15:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

La Lessa[edit]

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

refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#User:Jaguar FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will add later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject clearly meets the notability guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:25, 29 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) 01:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide Campuses[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is a list of locations without any form of annotations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a list of campuses as the name of the list claims; it is a list of cities and airbases. Moreover it has no references and no explanations. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. The list has nothing more then the names. →TSU ^tp* 07:01, 29 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) 01:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Snook[edit]

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

Municipal councillor in a city not large enough (population less than 75K) for its municipal councillors to count as notable per WP:POLITICIAN — with very rare exceptions which normally require far more detail and sourcing than has been provided here, we normally only allow councillors in major metropolitan cities with populations in the millions, such as Toronto or New York City or London. This was previously tagged for prod, but an anonymous IP removed both that and ((notability)) without providing any explanation or any improved evidence of notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without a better claim to notability, being a city councillor in Saint John isn't enough on its own. Hairhorn (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete if Toronto can have councillors on wikipedia so should all Canadian City`s. The issues with tagging seem to have been resolved an as for a city having to be as large as toronto or new york city to have councillors on wikipedia thats absolutley bogus wikipedia is for people to get information this should be on here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.149.94 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long-established consensus that city councillors are not fundamentally notable in principle. An exception has been made for cities with populations in the millions, since they typically become at least as well-known outside their own city as they do inside it — but in a city with only 60,000 or 70,000 people, councillors don't attain the same degree of national or international media attention, which is why most city councillors are not notable enough. And that same thing applies to the United States; by virtue of the city's size and the volume of broader media coverage that its municipal politics get, councillors in New York City are more notable than councillors in Alpena, Michigan or Julesburg, Colorado are. A city the size of Saint John is certainly permitted articles about its mayors, which is why I salvaged Shirley McAlary and Bob Lockhart instead of nominating them alongside this one — but regular city councillors are only notable in exceptional circumstances, not as a rule.

Also, please note that while you're free to post further comments in the discussion if desired, you only get to "vote" once — accordingly, your two separate back-to-back "don't delete" votes have been merged into one comment. Bearcat (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines as stated in the nomination. PK T(alk) 22:10, 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 keep. A weak keep - based on national TV show coverage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George K. Simon[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography of a self-help author. All but two of the sources are primary. The remaining two are used to justify the article's only two notability claims: that one of the author's books is a "definitive manual", and that it is one of the "bestselling book[s] of all time" in psychiatry. However, I don't think the two sources are reliable; one of them is a blog post, and the other is a website (human-nature.com) which was last updated in 2005 and looks to be little more than a link farm for Amazon referral payments. One would think that a "definitive" psychiatric manual would have a huge number of citations in the scientific and medical literature, but Google Scholar shows a total of one citation (in an ethics paper).

The article had been tagged as having multiple issues since its creation in September, but recently a new SPA has removed the cleanup tags without rectifying any of the problems. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Keep George K. Simon has written two books which appear to have had some impact in the self-help world. Besides the article's references, I saw a number of mentions on unrelated self-help sites about his books. If there are issues with the article, fix it, but I think that the article meets the WP:AUTHOR notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to check whether the link you posted is to a reliable source but it doesn't work for me. However, the site is on XLinkBot's blacklist due to copyright infringement and reliability issues, and a link to it was already automatically removed from the article for this reason. You said there was more than one site; could you post some more so we can check if they establish the subject's notability? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links to Dr. Simon's 5 minute interview on the O'Reilly Factor where the topic was his book "In Sheep's Clothes." Is my assumption that appearing on a nationally syndicated show would establish "notability?" Thanks ^[1] ^[2] Bclorenz21 (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my intention was to help this page. I was unaware that deleting the tags was a problem and I apologize. Bclorenz21 (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The transcript of the O'Reilly Factor appearance cannot be used as a reliable source for factual claims concerning Simon's theories or books, since interviews are considered primary sources. However, the interview's existence is a testament to the fact that Simon was "noticed" and given air time by the press. According to the criteria for academics, evidence of the subject's substantial impact outside academia is proven "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" (emphasis mine). A single five-minute appearance on a television show certainly wouldn't count as "frequently quoted"; so perhaps you could provide some further examples. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 1997 Dr. Simon appeared on the nationally syndicated The O'Reilly Factor which originally aired on the Fox News Channel. In the Interview he discussed his book In Sheep's Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People. ^[3]^[4] He has also appeared on CBS as well as Arkansas KTHV.^[5]^[6] Other appearances include. 3-18-97 "AM Focus" WMC NBC-Ch-4 Memphis, 3-28-97 "Metro Monitor" WBRC Fox Ch-6 Birmingham, 4-13-97 "Good Morning Texas" WFAA Dallas, 9-3-96 "Ch 11 Evening News" KTHV, 12-12-96 KTHV Morning Show.

Bclorenz21 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep – Television appearances on new shows qualifies as coverage in reliable sources, and this person has been covered in several television news shows. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning[edit]

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

Weak sourcing. I imagine the sourcing is hard because the name is such a common phrase however I could only find a bare mention in a third party source here. Software sounds relatively legitimate but it doesn't seem to rise to the level or importance or significant as far as learning software goes. I don't see anything particularly unique about this software. v/r - T P 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with TP that the software seems legitimate, but there is no evidence of notability. I could not find an independent reliable source for I am learning. NJ Wine (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While it sounds like a great project, it doesn't seem to have the secondary coverage to demonstrate it passes the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not Notable.--Deathlaser : Chat 17:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it's not notable doesn't imply anything. It's more notable than MyMaths, in my sight. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if articles are about topics that are not notable, then they get deleted. On the other hand, saying "Not Notable" does not carry any weight in a deletion discussion, if the !voter does not explain why they think something is not notable. Regarding MyMaths, read WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ‣ I'd be willing to reconsider if more sources are presented, given the difficulty in searching for the article name noted by the nominator, but the fact that only one hit is returned between Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar for the domain name "www.iamlearning.co.uk" indicates to me that this topic doesn't currently satisfy WP:GNG. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 18:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I didn't get reliable source thus cannot find it enough notable. Also the ranking is way to low to establish it →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - From my searches, results for sources are scant thus far. However, here's one I found that offers significant coverage about the topic:

"Steve heads back to school". The Epworth Bells & Crowle Advertiser. May 25, 2012. Retrieved May 25, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

If another reliable source comprised of significant coverage about the topic is found, this !vote can change.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not prove notability, not enough reliable sources to prove notability and 1.7 mill place in Alexa ranking is way to low.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlaser (talk • contribs)
Delete. It doesn't seem notable enough, and the sourcing is not great. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 21:01, 29 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 10:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

2010 Players Championship[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Individual editions of regular season golf tournaments other WGC events do not normally have long term notability, and this is no exception.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First two AFDs, both from 2010, closed as no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I was aware of the first debate but not the second....William 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are no subject-specific criteria for notability of golf tournaments: WP:NGOLF only covers golfers. The tournament itself is a small-m-major event and each edition clearly generates a huge amount of media coverage that's a slam-dunk case for WP:GNG. (One of the previous AFDs suggests that news coverage is scant outside the USA but I found large amounts of coverage in UK media.) Notability is not temporary, so the claim that there is no "long term notability" doesn't make sense. In any case, sports coverage often makes passing reference to events from the past so it's likely that each tournament will continue to be mentioned occasionally. At present, the 2010 article is mostly a list of stats, which violates WP:NOTDIR (I didn't look at the rest of them) but the fact that the article is currently in a poor state is not a reason to delete it: it's a reason to use some of the multitude of available sources to improve it. Dricherby (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me. It's the highest purse in golf, and attracts a field similar to a major. It gets world ranking points higher than any other non-major (by a fair margin). The PGA Tour does not run any of the four majors, so this is their signature event (famous course by now because of it; the island green on the 17th, etc.). Winners get exempted from other majors for three years mostly, more than any other non-major tournament. This tournament does have notability that lasts, based on the strength of the field. The PGA Tour schedule is generally set up with one highly significant tournament a month -- Masters in April, Players Championship in May, US Open in June, British Open in July, and the PGA Championship in August. It is sometimes called the "fifth major" for a reason. I still stand by my comments in the second nomination. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notability is for the Players Championship, one of the most recognized tournaments in golf. Individual events are broken out for size and aesthetic reasons, and should not have to meet the GNG on their own. It would be cumbersome in the extreme to merge all tournaments since 1974 into one article, and I suggest that the nominator keep this in mind when tagging such articles. The Steve 11:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - other sports also have similar articles (in all, they account for more than 200 articles approx which are like these). This is obviously a notable event itself. All of them should be kept. →TSU ^tp* 10:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Clearly shows that there needs to be a list of notable events worthy of year by year coverage. Field is comparable in strength to the WGC events (ranked 7th strongest in 2011 by OWGR. see Official World Golf Ranking#Calculation of the rankings.5B1.5D) and only gets more ranking points than the WGC events because it has a guaranteed 80. "Fifth major" tag is a red-herring. Never was a fifth major, never will be. Not sure prize money is a relevant point either. Plenty of big money events over the years e.g. Nedbank Golf Challenge. The FedEx Cup events get their own pages: 2011 FedEx Cup Playoffs so the Players Championship would stand out if it didn't have a page. We also have the issue of the European Tour BMW PGA Championship: see 2012 BMW PGA Championship. Should one be included and not the other? - both flagship events for the 2 main tours. Winner of last 3 BMW PGA Championships gets exempted from 2012 Open Championship. Danger of taking an American point of view here.Nigej 12:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winshuttle[edit]

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

I don't think this company satisfies WP:ORG. Number 18 software company in Seattle is just not enough, and I don't see enough coverage either. Muhandes (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manta says that the company was founded in 2003 and has 50 employees. The article has several independent sources and doesn't seem like an advertisement, so I think we should keep it. NJ Wine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: I have to disagree with NJ Wine. This article reads like an advert to me (specifically a press release), and founding date and number of employees aren't indications of notability. As for the sources, the only one showing any notability is the second, which I had to look at on archive.org as it no longer exists on the site it was originally posted on, and even then the notability is minor. The other sources are an interview with the CEO of the business (not independent), a press release from the company (not independent) and the final three are about the business acquiring other businesses, none of which indicate any notability. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Npost, Allbusiness, and 4 Xconomy articles are all independent sources. I agree with you that a press release is not an independent source, but an interview with the CEO of a company by an unaffiliated media site is an independent source, as are news articles about the acquisition of other companies. NJ Wine (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is not independent, due to the fact that they're talking with the CEO of the company. What I said about the acquisition articles was that they didn't indicate notability, not that they weren't independent. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had previously tagged this for notability and not at all surprised to find it here. That said, Total-MAdMaN sums up the issues rather neatly, so I won't repeat them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:39, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Triumfante Dayawon[edit]

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

No claim to any notability, seems more like a personal tribute page. Fails WP:PEOPLE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a memorial. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not particularly notable. His claims to fame seem to be that he was vice-mayor of a town of 12,000 about 60 years ago, and that he was ward captain in a town of 11,000. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:10, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Druid[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. JoelWhy (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is this a very minor wrestler, its a very minor fictional wrestler that appeared in a single video game. And with no reliable sources to indicate any sort of notability of this fictional character at all, there's no way it passes the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 22 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) • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentioning this one in the video game's article is more than enough. — Vano 16:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on notability grounds - Though I strongly question why some editors are some prompt to AfD articles instead of PROD'ing them when deleting seems so uncontroversial. Salvidrim! 18:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentSorry, you're right, I should have used PROD for this. I tend to exclusively use CSD or AfD, and I need to get into a habit of using that middle ground in Prod...JoelWhy (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Seems more fitting to be a single sentence in the respective game's article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I think WP:PROD or even WP:SPEEDY would be better as it is uncontroversial. CyanGardevoir 23:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A PROD would have done the trick but no problem. There is no trace of WP:N →TSU ^tp* 10:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no sign of notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:27, 29 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) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Senthil Nathan[edit]

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

A Urologist. Claim to fame is he performed one of the first surgeries with a robot, named PROBOT. I'm unable to find that he had anything to do with the robot. I can only find the same sentence over and over again that appears in the Robotic Surgery article, "In 1988, the PROBOT, developed at Imperial College London, was used to perform prostatic surgery by Dr. Senthil Nathan at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London". I'm unable to find any reliable refs that back this up. I'm unable to find any independent and reliable refs about him. There are several other Senthil Nathan that show up, especially Google Scholar. There is an environmental engineer and neurosurgeon that show up the most, so I could have missed something. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Bgwhite, after getting your comment to my article I tried to find some reliable sources, contacted to Dr Nathan's office and can get a video(broadcasted by BBC tomorrow's world) which clearly says he perform first robotic surgery in the world. I got Marquis who is who bookm, his name is named there. I got some paper cuttings of the leading UK news paper. I don't know how can I provide reference to Wikipedia? Any suggestions regarding the matter is highly appreciated. Thank you- Rajesh Parallelly I will try to edit the article when I will have time. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh Mani Lamichhane (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending verification of the large claims made in the article (that he was actually the first person in the world to carry out robotic surgery on humans). It is verifiable that he has something to do with surgical robotics, which he teaches at University College London Hospital - though apparently as a clinical professor (a private practitioner who also teaches) rather than full time academic staff.[1] The article cites several newspapers but they are not available for viewing. I could not find a single published work by him at Google Scholar or at PubMed (screening together with the word Robot or Robotics to eliminate namesakes). It's hard to believe that he could have done something so groundbreaking but never published it! Google News Archive finds only this Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This article in Wired gives a brief history of the PROBOT, but it does not mention Dr. Nathan. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first robotic surgery was performed three years before Dr. Nathan in 1985. Robot was called PUMA 560. Reference for the surgery and a reference for two other surgeries performed before Dr. Nathan. A book on robotic surgery briefly mentions the PROBOT as being developed in the early 1990's. The same book mentions the PUMA 560 as being the first in 1985. Bgwhite (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the article's claims are not merely unverified - they are false? --MelanieN (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"His contribution to the development of minimal invasive techniques and robotic surgery for urological diseases is well recognized" I'd say this statement is false as he is not well recognized and appears to not have contributed.

"In particular he carried out the first robotic surgery in the world to actually remove human tissue" I'd say unverified. The first robotic procedure did not remove human tissue, but I don't have a clue what the other procedures performed before Nathan involved and I can't find where Nathan removed any human tissue. He clearly wasn't the first to use a robot during surgery. I can't find any independent and reliable reference that he did the surgery at all. Bgwhite (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article cites 3 newspaper articles. The article from The Independent mentions him as being involved with development of the robot, and quotes him, but there's not much more on him, and certainly nothing about him originating/inventing it. I found the Express article on UKPressONline, and it says much the same. I can't find the News of the World article, but would guess it's almost identical. He was just one of many people involved in the work. I searched many other news archives without getting anything. Doesn't seem enough material for WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Devlin[edit]

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

Nominate for deletion Can see nothing to prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete resident Rat Pack vocalist for the Trafford Centre does not cut it where WP's notability standards are concerned. Oh, and a straight lift from his own website. --AJHingston (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After the usual searches I don't see reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this fellow under WP:GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:39, 30 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 deleted by Amatulic. Peridon (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Pad[edit]

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

Not notable enough and like an advert of the product. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 16:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Unambiguous advertising, speedy delete per G-11. West Eddy (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but as non-notable. The intention is obviously there to get the thing known, but the wording isn't promotional to the extent that I'd speedy it. Tastes differ, so I'm not declining it. Peridon (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin D. Nutt[edit]

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

Non-notable author. One self-published self-help book that has not received any reviews in any mainstream press or book sites. The author appears to have gone on a series of radio talk shows to promote his book, but no real signs of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-published authors are not automatically notable. If kept, large portions of this article need to be rewritten as they are copyright violations from press releases and other materials. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only intuition makes me think that the creating editor could possibly have a COI; their knowledge of the topic is too strong to have come from the sources provided alone. Above all: it fails WP:Notability. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are few non-reliable sources. Many things need verification and thus fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Nothing is there to establish WP:N. →TSU ^tp* 15:47, 29 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) 02:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Harra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing indicates this individual might be notable. The "sources" presented are as follows:

Six links to her books on Google Books ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Needless to say, these are irrelevant as far as demonstrating notability is concerned.
An interview with a tabloid reprinted by an even shadier site.
A sale page from her publisher.
A dead link to a tabloid.
A news brief mentioning her rivalry with another psychic.
Passing mention in an "odd news" type of article from 2004, where she predicts that the 2008 US Presidential race will be between Hillary Clinton and a Southern woman 10-12 years her junior. Notability not confirmed; no comment on her abilities as a psychic.

As the above analysis shows, there is no evidence Harra passes WP:BIO, and we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage Harra gets outside the tabloid media is non-existent, and even the tabloid one is scanty. Dahn (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking indepth coverage in reliable sources. Salt as a recreation of a previously AfD-deleted page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage in WP:RS and thus fails WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 15:46, 29 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Guitar[edit]

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

Unnotable film (if indeed it exists). Wikilinks are to user pages. Mean as custard (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax I removed the links to user pages, and linking from article space to user space is not allowed in articles, regardless of the validity of any claims of this (alleged) $400 million dollar budged film. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as G3 blatant hoax. In searching for the film and the actors, there are no RS speaking about them, the film, nor the claimed awards. And in following up on User:Dennis Brown's work, I have found the new and unsourced article Silver Screen Awards, itself has links back to userspace... for instance, in THAT article, "Motion Pictures Productions" leads (led) directly to User:Amanpreet S Sokhi, who appears (along with User:Gaganpreet S Sokhi (userpage pretending to be an article) and IP 182.68.149.252) to have been involved in other hoax articles.[8] The Silver Screen Awards article includes at least one other hoax ~~to be expected soon~~ NOW at AFD... Haweli Ek Paheli. Someone spent a great deal of time building this house of cards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. In addition, I've filed an SPI regarding the article's creator. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The entire box of puppets found has been quickly confirmed by checkuser and have been dealt with accordingly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a hoax. Zero coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is an hoax for sure and just in case if it is not a hoax, there is no notability there. →TSU ^tp* 10:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sigh, again, a Bollywood film of 2010? I was still scanning newspapers for new movie releases at that time. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:00, 29 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 per WP:SNOW, confusing vandalism was removed and sources added. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe language[edit]

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

Has no references to language. Semms like a joke Mjs1991 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seemed like a joke thanks to some halfwit at "Girls' Day School Trust". Here it is at Ethnologue. With an estimated 805,000 speakers just six years ago, does it still seem like a joke? -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously. --Lambiam 14:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a ref. Definitely a real language. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no reason to be here, real language, properly referenced stub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Real language, and good references are in the article.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 17:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously. --JorisvS (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. I can see how one would think this to be a joke with the vandalism and the fact that "Hehe" is an onomatopoeia for laughter in the English language, but references have been added to verify that this is indeed not a hoax. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Non-vandalised version is notable. Buggie111 (talk) 00:08, 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 Speedy G7. Peridon (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Ahmedabad[edit]

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

Aside from the additional climate infobox, the article is a word-for-word copy and paste of Ahmedabad#Climate. Technically, this is a copyright licensing violation, as adequate attribution has not been given, per WP:CWW. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed to G7 this one - I stated the reason previously here. Anyhow, I failed to tag it with G7 but now did. Again my apologies for creating them. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 13:50, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wanksy[edit]

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

Based on a short film by student film makers. No indication of WP:notability. noq (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support this almost makes me regret opposing the extension of A7 to films. But yes this is not yet notable, might be worth restoring if it actually wins an award. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WereSpielChequers. Not notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NF. Brand new article writen by a 2-edit-ever new contributor[9] who may think that Wikipedia is the place to share a film created for the New Zealand's version of a 48-Hour Film Festival.[10] Short films have difficulty becoming notable, and those scripted, shot, and edited in only two days have greater difficulties than most. After a bit of effort it's looking prettier now,[11] but the best that might be said is this article is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 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. I'm sorry but the "delete" !voters make the stronger argument here. There's not enough coverage of him yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Green (composer)[edit]

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

Biography of a run of the mill sound engineer and composer. Credits include background music for some video games, short films and documentaries. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a BLP with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG criteria. An online search failed to find any significant discussion of this person or their work. (NOTE: while searching, this person should not be confused with Chris Green, former chief executive of BASCA.) One brief interview in his college magazine and a small list of non-notable credits on IMDb does not pass the requirement for significant coverage. This person's career may someday be notable -- but, as of now, an encyclopedic article is entirely premature. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Person has written two scores for computer games deemed notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, Doctor Who: Return to Earth and Doctor Who: Evacuation Earth, therefore does he not become notable enough too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.156.60 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer your question, a work can be notable without a person who contributed to that work being notable. A lot of non-notable actors are listed in the credits of notable films for example. Indeed, the writer of Doctor Who: Return to Earth is a redlink. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This is a person at the start of his career who has yet to build a body of work or track record of awards sufficient to make him notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Updated with additional information and independant links - interview with Nokia talking about work with Criterion Games and Electronic Arts (http://nokiaconnects.com/2012/05/22/nokia-connects-live-video-game-sound-design-podcast/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.180.122 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems more than a "run-of-the-mill" composer, notable enough for Nokia to take notice/interview and works on AAA games as a composer. Also after looking through Wiki at some other composer/sound designer bios, i feel this one is better reference and supported than a lot of other on here. Therefore, seems unfair to not keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.134 (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely run of the mill. A few credits and an interview or two do not make someone notable according to the policies referenced in the nomination. If there are worse articles, they should be nominated too. It's not a reason to keep this one. Beingthechange (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came across this article and found it interesting, relevant and notable enough to put forward a case for keeping it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.0.180 (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That argument amounts to "I like it". No indication of how the article meets any particular inclusion guideline. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 29 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. What is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. Whether or not it should be merged into the brewery's article is an editorial decision that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bavaria non alcoholic beer[edit]

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

Non WP:notable beer. Only sources a one line reference in a guardian article and a user review site. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Anecdotaly, I can assure the reader that this is one of the most popular non alcoholic beers in the UK, possibly the most popular (I have been trying to find a source one way or the other on that but can't). Article not even finished anyway, I've been adding more things to it since the half hour or so after it's creation when it was prod'd then AfD'd... Egg Centri c 12:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfDing an article 28 minutes after creation is against WP policy: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." (Wikipedia:BEFORE). Wikipedia isn't a race to delete things as fast as possible, and a brief Google shows lots of possible hits. Aside for various reviews on beer/liquor sites, it seems to be quite notorious for its advertising.[12][13][14][15] --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the brewery's article. That the beer has references doesn't mean it deserves a standalone article. I'm not even sure that the name is right, considering the MoS as well as the sources I find (see this--Bavaria's own website must be the worst in the world, but the bottles are labeled "0/0%" followed by some other options). Drmies (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Drmies. Most beer brands don't rise to notability levels that justify their own pages. Even big-name brands redirect to brewery pages or lists of brands, such as Bud Light, Dos Equis, and Beck's. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to me. I agree that many beers are missing a page, but that's a weakness in wikipedia - we need a lot more beer articles imo. I assume the fans are too drunk

Egg Centri c 18:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. I see Guinness as the gold standard here, but upon further exploration, there are much less developed articles such as Red Stripe whose deletion I wouldn't endorse. I tried a quick search, but I couldn't find any stats on NA beers in the UK. How's that search for a source coming? If you can find a good one that confirms Bavaria as the best selling in the UK, I'd be willing to strike my vote. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything (not that I've been searching night and day for it either...) - one of the difficulties is the different classes of no alcohol beer. This stuff really is negligible alcohol, but anything up to 0.5% alcohol counts as no alcohol by some definitions; indeed apparently there's more booze in some kinds of cola than there is in this - if that is true with coke then it's the biggest selling beer! (Or more realistically, awe may have some shandy as a best seller). What I would say - as an experiment, assuming you're UK based (edit: which you're probably not, looking at your user page), go and look at the beer aisle(s) next time you're at a supermarket, I reckon it's a tie up between this and the zero alcohol becks. Although there's also the slight thingy that I moved to the Isle of Man a few months ago, and it's rather backward here

Egg Centri c 22:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like it has actually gotten a decent amount of coverage, particularly when considering their ad campaigns. It's even broken into the African market [16]. A merge would be an ok solution, but it's not my first choice. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my mind on this one. We do need better coverage of beers. Did you know that Miller Lite and Coors Light have their own articles, while Bud Light doesn't despite being the US's top selling beer? --BDD (talk) 15:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 15:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It Takes Two (1982 TV series)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for TV shows or the general notability guideline (contested prod) – hysteria18 (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only has 3 external link references. One is "The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows" (an obvious collection of everything and not considering notability), the IMDB profile (which has been asserted several times as not reliable), and the TV.com listing of the site. These references suggest, at least to me, a lack of sources and reasonable notability for this series. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs cleanup for sure, but I don't see how it fails to meet notability guidelines. It ran on ABC, so that's a national scope. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the guideline In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage. In this case it was cancelled after one season. As far as I know (and based on the scrambling to find more/better sourcs we still have the same questionable sources. Hasteur (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of local shows have Wiki articles as well, especially if they are popular and successful for the area they broadcast in. ~~(talk)~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by numbaonestunna (talk • contribs)

Keep. The Complete Directory is reliable source enough. Apparently some of you are still new to Wikipedia---what else can explain the fact that you're not acknowledging all the other short-lived series that have had articles on here for a long time. It shouldn't matter if a series was popular or not, or whether or not it made an impact on the industry, society, etc. Ever since Wiki's existence, new articles have been made all the time for upcoming shows, many of them which get cancelled after short runs every year. Do we then decide to delete those articles just because the shows are no longer newsworthy? I mean, articles for The Class and Better With You were about one-season runs, and I highly doubt anyone is going to scrap those now, even if they were newsworthy at one time. Everything is notable if it involves a national TV production employing high-profile Hollywood writers, actors and other miscellaneous crew. Also, the actors who are involved with these articles in question deserve to have obscure shows accessible in blue links instead of in red (if you all catch my drift), so that readers can further get an idea of the sorts of projects they were involved with, beyond what they're most recognized for. Lastly, I have started on a separate article for Witt/Thomas Productions, and my goal is to have every one of their series listed have an active article. As for this page, I am sure archived news articles and press releases for It Takes Two exist..but realistically, you all are asking for more sources than what most short-lived series have on here. Time to be more aware. talk

Please strike your Ad-Hom attack. Hysteria18 and I are not a new editors. I am quite familiar with notability guidelines and therefore familiar with the nuances thereof. You on the other hand have taken several breaks from editing, have a significantly lower edit count overall and have multiple warnings on your page. It seems to me that while you may have had expertiese, Wikipedia's policies have passed you by. Before you post again, pleas read the above mentioned policy. Please also take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as you already have stumbled across 2 of the arguments to avoid. Hasteur (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been editing consistently for almost six years; only, I have more than one account on Wikipedia. Therefore, you cannot go by the account I'm currently using alone. The multiple warnings were only for photos, which many editors encounter because of the ever-changing amount of info. categories added to the upload form. I have read Wikipedia's policies, but as I have clearly demonstrated here, I do not agree with all of the deletion policies that have been put into place, which many users as a whole apparently pass over as well. Since this is not a forum for getting political with Wikipedia, I will not go any further on that subject. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.91.100 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per discussions in the past, all American primetime network television series are automatically notable, and this one starring Patty Duke, one of the most well known TV actresses, definitely so, along with being a career jumping-off point for Helen Hunt and Anthony Edwards. Some of the most minute details can be removed, but otherwise the article and sourcing to the Directory establishes the series well enough as notable. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation Requested. According to the guideline if there aren't reliable sources that cover it in depth, we can't keep the article. Surely there's a reference that supports your claims. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment By your standards then, we'd have to put up Joanie Loves Chachi because it's also single-sourced, when anyone can name it as "that Scott Baio show" or "the Happy Days spin-off that bombed". Generally, primetime television series usually have automatic keeps in AfD as has been past procedure because it's common sense to catalog television series that have aired to national audiences, especially in primetime, and especially pre-1985 before cable networks began to ramp up original content. Sources have been added by others from publications for this article, meanwhile, so your concerns have been addressed. Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further comment Also, I would like to strongly urge you to remain civil throughout this discussion. Leaving edit summaries that you're trying to shame keep rationales into deletions and calling a contributor an "old dog" are not appropriate for an AfD. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Wikipedia doesn't require the sources are immediately cited, just that they exist. WP:BEFORE require that we search for them before nominating an article for deletion (and for voting delete, too), and in a case like this it's quite easy to find book and news sources about this TV-series, including some printed encyclopedias. If even we don't do a research, "common sense" tells us that a TV-series broadcasted in prime time by ABC, starred by Richard Crenna and Patty Duke, created by Susan Harris, that already includes a reliable source, it is probably notable. Cavarrone (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have read extensively the portion of the Directory that is supposed to support the notability for this. 3 Paragraphs in a book of 600 pages or more (~9000 paragraphs). The reliable sources must offer significant coverage. This article and it's sources fall well below that requirement. It's quite disturbing to see how poorly the notability guidelines get applied. Hasteur (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, have you tried to make a search in news and book archives instead of wasting your (and our) time in useless polemics? As you claim to be an experienced user, have you never heard about WP:BEFORE, and if yes, why do not apply it? What about articles on The Phoenix, Chicago Tribune, The Press Courier, The Calgary Heralds, The Palm Beach Post, The Leader Post, The Milwaukee Sentinel, New York Times? If you are unable to find sources like these, it would be better you'll abstain from voting into AfDs... And finally no, three paragraphs in a book is not a trivial coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Not the deleter's responsibility to find sources, it's the content adder's responsibility. And I'll thank you to stop attacking my credibility. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the future, you are patently wrong... WP:BEFORE is the first point in the Deletion Process, and point D explicitally says "D. If the main concern is notability, search for additional sources. The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. etc.etc." And our notability guideline explicitally says: Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Laziness should not be a reason for starting useless, silly deletion'discussions like this one. Cavarrone (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you also talking about the references that were just added in the last few hours? I think the summary in the Complete Directory only has two paragraphs, but it basically explains all the plot details that were included in this article's synopsis. 71.243.91.100 (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)numbaonestunna (talk)[reply]
Keep due to sources quoted by user:Cavarrone. The Steve 11:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After searching the Google News archives, found plenty of sources that support notability. Roodog2k (talk) 17:36, 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 keep. Jenks24 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Bahraini Tale[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for films or the general notability guideline (contested prod; see Talk:A Bahraini Tale#Against the proposed deletion) – hysteria18 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The film did get significant coverage in its initial stages by the national newspaper (which publishes internationally) [17], And in accordance with the general notability guide , that is a proper source for notable films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Droodkin (talk • contribs) 13:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability requisites for an Arabic-language Bahraini film that "was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country". I came into this hoping that someone was not expecting much English-language or world-wide coverage, and suprisingly found we DO have enough, even if not yet in the article, to encourage the article be expanded with the English-language sources AND to ask for assistance from Arabic-reading Wikipedians in adding Arabic-language sources. Notable to Bahrain is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and per WP:NFILMS, specifically "The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand"", and here we're talking about the third film ever produced in Bahrain. Cavarrone (talk) 09:32, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DaFont[edit]

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

I only found trivial mentions for this website. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some (old) discussion about notability on the talk page. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:46, 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, Sandstein 09:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found a few tangential mentions in computer books, but all they do is name drop. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable third-party sources; fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. →B music ian 22:11, 29 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 05:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste (soft drink)[edit]

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

Unsourced, not of clear notability. PROD was declined, but no reason was given p b p 22:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Pantry, as their entire private label line is named Celeste, and these soda brandings are as WP:DUH as you can get. Nate • (chatter) 05:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of being a) DUH, and b) unsourced leads me to wonder why we need the information period. The entire article can be boiled down to "Pantry sells a line of soft drinks called Celeste, which comes in Cola, Diet Cola, Orange, Peach, Mountain Citrus and Dr. Celeste" p b p 14:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point; who is going to look for an article about generic mini-mart soda? Change to delete, and adding in a small mention of the soda line into the Pantry article. Nate • (chatter) 01:07, 9 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, 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, Sandstein 09:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no evidence of notability and, as above, it's hard to see how a line of store-brand sodas could be worth more than a sentence in the store's own article. Dricherby (talk) 21:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Yunshui 雲‍水 08:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Five Star Prison Cell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BAND. no major awards, no notable members. gnews hits limited to 1 line mentions [18]. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First source in the article is a decent size but reads very much like a press release. Second mearly verifies the band being tech metal. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I don't have time to improve this article to suitable standard, the group is notable enough to be mentioned in dispatches:

Music Australia/Trove/NLA: 1, 2, 3. With the first of these giving three paragraphs on the group.
Jackson Guitars. Caution: probably a sponsor.
FasterLouder gig reviews, album review.
Loud mag's gig review.
Beat Magazine reviews.

All up more than enough to establish notability via online media.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore: According to Allmusic, they have released three albums on a well known label, Warner Music Australia.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three albums on a major label, meets WP:MUSIC. — sparklism ^hey! 12:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Band seems notable enough. They have references and external links to prove they are notable--Mjs1991 (talk) 12:32, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Walker (baseball)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Brian Walker (baseball) (2nd nomination)

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

Can find no record that this person still plays baseball and despite one unsportsmanslike incident, his career was not noteworthy. Not notable; he has since retired. See http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100621&content_id=11430854&vkey=news_t574&fext=.jsp&sid=t574— D'Ranged 1 ^talk 00:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:WPBB/N. KTC (talk) 07:44, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 08:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly doesn't meet the baseball notability guidelines....William 23:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and others. He never appeared in the majors, and his brief minor league career doesn't suggest any sort of notability. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the person has done nothing notable enough to have an article. →TSU ^tp* 10:34, 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 delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Stone[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears to have been a minor energy medicine proponent. From what I can tell he seems to have acquired none of the marks of notability we might expect from a sixty year career.

The topic he is appears to be most associated with ( Polarity therapy )) is currently the subject of another AFD debate. Salimfadhley (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Polarity therapy which would assume keeping thata rticle but would be the best solution. If though Polarity therpay were deleetd I would change my vote to Keep and merge the contents of that article here. I do believe one article should remian and bioth should NOT be deleted. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with Polarity therapy. There is at least a little independent sourcing that mentions polarity therapy, but there is pretty much no independent sourcing about Stone. Everything I could find about Stone was self-referential to something like this. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, preferably emphasizing verifiable attributes of Polarity Therapy. Stone's influence is mentioned in several books about massage and movement therapy that come up on a cursory scan of Google books and questions about Polarity Therapy are included in the massage licensure board examinations in several states. Stone's synthesis of the predominate manipulative therapies of his era with traditional hands-on therapies of Asia was the first to identify a common conceptual framework underlying their various methods. His work has been consistently noted for it's influence on massage and bodywork.--SympatheticResonance (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"questions about Polarity Therapy are included in the massage licensure board examinations in several states." Do you have evidence of that? In a quick Google search I could find none. This would have been more useful in the discussion about Polarity Therapy, but at least it would suggest (if true) that Stone's ideas are a little more mainstream or accepted that we have seen to date. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 23 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, 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, →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One, unreliable, source. This is not good enough for a biographical article. This particular article refers to the originator of a therapy that is not considered notable enough to have its own article. Famousdog (talk) 07:51, 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. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus Series[edit]

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

Non-notable "rivalry". Two sources are team histories, while the other two explicitly challenge the idea that this is a rivalry. Other coverage appears to be WP:Run-of-the-mill game reports using "Citrus Series" in a colloquial way. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. The Miami media doesn't mention this as a notable rivalry. I remembered prodding and even speedy deleting this article a while back but I guess it got recreated. Secret ^account 02:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep just because it's not on the level with the Dodgers-Giants or Yankees-Red Sox doesn't make the rivalry non-notable, and between fans there's some bad blood (yes that's OR and can't be used as a source but it's true). Using the "Google Test" I get 59,900 results. I'm sure if you looked good enough through those results you could find sufficient sources to establish notability, in fact I will start work on it myself. (Full disclosure, in case it wasn't obvious enough, I am a Rays fan so I do have "inside" experience with the rivalry in question.) CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 05:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well a large percentage of those hits have nothing to do with this rivalry, the ones that does aren't reliable sources at all like Bleacher Report and other fan blogs. There's some passing mentions of a rivalry in Google News, but nothing that mentions why the rivalry is a notable one in particular, very few hits in the Miami and Tampa media. Secret ^account 22:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never understood, what's the big thing against fan blogs? Most I've seen give pretty reliable info. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 02:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well fan blogs are usually written by fans not notable journalists. I've contributed some content before to Bleacher Report regarding baseball history, and I know several top contributors there and they aren't journalists. Blogs like that aren't considered reliable sources because the content isn't scrutinized, and it's written mainly for entertainment, literally a tabloid. I'm not saying all sports blogs are not considered reliable sources, as some are excellent sources written by well known journalists and players just not this one or the others mentioned in the Google search. Secret ^account 15:52, 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) 00:05, 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, →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 07:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Major League Baseball rivalries. I do not see enough independent sources of significant coverage to have a standalone article per WP:GNG. However, this term is used so frequently that it is a natural search item. I am always surprised when more attempts are not made to WP:PRESERVE information in lieu of an AfD. It is OK to present reliable sources that say this "rivalry" is not really a rivalry, but there is no denying the concept of a Citrus Series exists. No prejudice for a standalone article if warranted by future sources.—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. HighBeam Research has 25 results on <"citrus series" marlins> which boil down to about a dozen independent game reports spanning 1999 to 2011, mostly from AP Online. None of them appears to discuss the concept of the series in depth, though they are more than trivial mentions. Since HighBeam doesn't archive everything, other sources will undoubtedly exist - the same search on Google News gives me 78 hits, but I haven't examined them. That the series has been reported on over an extended period of time (and coverage will presumably continue) is in its favour. —SMALLJIM 09:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would still recommend to merge and redirect, with the usual caveat of no prejudice to recreate if new sources are identified to meet GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe not the most notable rivalry but meets WP:GNG with sources already in article, and more can be found although I'm not sure if they provide much additional information. A section could be added to the rivalries article, although the results table and infobox don't appear in sections for the other rivalries so would probably be lost if this is merged which is a reason to have a separate page if it's going to be kept up to date. Peter E. James (talk) 19:44, 31 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 University of Nebraska–Lincoln. -Scottywong | prattle _ 15:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

College of Journalism and Mass Communications (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)[edit]

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

"Article" has no content. If the article had content and was not just a few sentences and a long list of external links, then it could safely be merged with University of Nebraska–Lincoln Elassint ^Hi 03:58, 8 Mammy 2012 (UTC)

merge since there is a little to merge. It's a merge with possibilities, because its possible that it might egrow into an article. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC) as the sensible compromise solution. Not really appropriate for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:26, 9 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) 00:04, 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, →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 07:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG as a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In terms of notability and length I can't honestly see this warrants a separate article, but a merge with University of Nebraska–Lincoln would be fine. Pol430 talk to me 18:06, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Malis[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. I found a few name-drops but nothing of substance. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable minor comedy writer. Google search did not turn anything promising. The Time article mentions him only tangentially. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 30 April 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)} 19:42, 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, →B music ian 09:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and above. Sarah (talk) 17:19, 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, →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 07:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google not showing enough results which are notable. And per nom fails GNG. →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 07:55, 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 keep. Jenks24 (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Romero[edit]

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

This topic may have the potential for inclusion, but as it stands it would need to be entirely rewritten so as to not appear as an autobiography or resume. It should be deleted without prejudice for recreation provided that the new article is in line with WP:NOTRESUME. West Eddy (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ fails badly Wikipedia standards of WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:V, and is nothing to be saved in it. It claims that "Fernando designed the winning entry for the Casa da Música competition in Porto" but the official website credits Rem Koolhaas, while he is mentioned as part of a larger team, and neither press coverage does credit him. --ELEKHH^T 22:43, 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, JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see sufficient coverage in independent sources to establish notability (e.g. here and here). Sources like this and this show that Mr. Romero was not just a member of the team that designed the Casa da Música, but had a special position there. Potentially repairable WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:V issues are not a sufficient reason for deletion. --Lambiam 21:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right, those are interesting sources, but will have to get a multiple issues tag if kept without being rewriten. --ELEKHH^T 01:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources herein from User:Lambiam above, which demonstrate topic notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 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, →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 07:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about enough sources for notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 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 keep. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Askia-Williams[edit]

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

1. BLP notability 2. failed verification (couple of weak refs ok) Widefox (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 22 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, →B music ian 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep... She is a very popular actress in Nigeria under her maiden name, Regina Askia. Her biography should actually have a redirect for Regina Askia. Nigerian and Ghana media have a lot of articles on her. She did several films a few years ago. Nigerian cinema is now called Nollywood, some articles say she was one of the first Nollywood stars. Her soap opera role was also apparently quite well known in Nigeria. She is cited in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Women as a notable Nigerian actress [19]. She is mentioned along with one of her movies in a book on African cinema [20]. An English-language Nigerian news publication in the United States, Newswatch, mentions her as a well-known actress [21]. She was one of the most highly-paid actresses in Nigeria, N300,000 for a film called Festival of Fire [22]. Nigerian actresses just don't rake in the kind of money and international publicity that Angelina Jolie, and other Hollywood actresses do. But Nigeria has a huge population, and Askia is well-regarded there. Don't let her career change to registered nurse fool you -- Once Jolie gets to a certain age, her acting roles will dry up too, lol. She got an award in 2007 in Washington from the Celebrating African Motherhood Organization (CAM) [23]. I'll try to clean up her bio and add sources.OttawaAC (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Needs editing and some clean up, but it is not a junk bio and is best kept. Deletion should be a last resort, individual has prominent roles in 'foreign' films. Wikipedia isn't limited in its scope. Her other work is also good, if not notable itself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:54, 30 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 20:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Vila[edit]

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

Tried finding sources for this, came up empty. Non-notable actress who has appeared in a few small movies and had bit parts on a few scatered episodes of TV shows. Appears the article is being created by a PR person from the username being used. Ridernyc (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entry is valuable to Wikipedia, as she is the first Salvadoran actress to have gained merit in French film and American TV. No other actress before her has achieved that. Try finding sources indicating otherwise and you'll see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.223.140 (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources here, like IMDB, and more importantly wikipedia itself! I don't understand why Wikipedia admin is so critical of Salvadoran actors, calling them "non notable" just because they aren't household names in the United States. I would think that Wikipedia would be less prejudiced than that. Having people of note from other cultures like El Salvador is a valuable addition to Wikpedia because it informs North Americans that there is a wider world out there beyond the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slvdrnbleeker (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I rarely !vote this way, so let me explain. Certainly not only this article but this AfD have all the hallmarks of drain-circling: creation by an account with a suspect username (although I have not found a connection to the subject), unsigned keep votes by recently-created accounts with few or no other edits, insistence on a source (IMdB) we don't consider reliable and use of arguments like WP:EVERYTHING. But ... I am not convinced just by all that that the subject is non-notable. Certainly there would be other sources for the U.S. TV show credits, like the show's websites? And can someone look through, say, the Salvadorean press for coverage that might establish notability in that context? Until we resolve this I'm not sure we should be so hasty. Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. BGwhite's research and Ridernyc's followup have been convincing. Daniel Case (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the foreign press got two hits for this person. Both were non-notable and looked like simple copies of press releases. One was she was in a contest to have a bit part on Mad Men, the other was a simple cut and past of her bio, which has since been translated and at one point was very very close to what was in the article. I have been unable to find anything about the movies and the critical acclaim she received. Both films are short films, at one point the article claimed one of them won awards in France, but can not find sources. I have repeatedly removed 90210 from the article, she is listed as "Housekeeper" in the credits, it keeps getting placed back in. Also at one point there was a "mistake" in the 90210 listing that gave the character a name. Every time I clean this up and ask for cites, it is simply reedited to inflate the resume of this person. Ridernyc (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--- I agree with Daniel Case. In fact, you have to have people among the adminstrators in Wikipedia who can actually speak Spanish and French. I myself found at least articles on behalf of the subject from one of the top two national newspapers of El Salvador called La Prensa Grafica. This newspaper is the equivalent of The New York Times in El Salvador, yet Ridernyc is questioning its validity. I read one of the articles myself and it is an interview of her experience working on ER, how she came about becoming an actress, her personal life, her family. I'm not sure why Ridernyc is claiming it is close to what is currently on Wikipedia. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] In addition, there are several websites in France who state that the short film by the title of Alea directed by Antoine Pinson has won several prizes and Palmares in France. ^[5] It seems Ridernyc is doing limited research because he/she may not speak other languages. Also, for TV shows, the network has to approve the credit of each participating actor. If you look at the names of each episode she has been in you can see her TV credit. If that doesn't suffice, you should get on the phone with each production company or network to verify that the participation of the subject is valid. I personally don't think that the subject is trying to inflate her resume because again you can verify her co-star role on 90210 despite that the name of her role was "Cleaning Lady" not "Housekeeper" like Ridernyc claims. I also have a question, do the administrators of Wikipedia only stick to sources that are online only? Or do they actually get on the phone and investigate with the pertinent entities? 99.124.164.41 (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another IP that is very interested in this. The link you show are the unreliable press releases I mentioned above. And nope sorry I'm not calling production companies to verify your client has only had small background bit parts on TV shows. Please provide us to links from independent reliable sources. Ridernyc (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that the Salvadoran national newspaper La Prensa Grafica is an unreliable source? Is it not referenced in Wikipedia? I'm confused. How are you to make accusations that the subject is a client of mine? You shouldn't be making wild, close minded accusations about contributors to pages and be objective about the subject. She is not a background actress and if you looked into it further you would see that it is a fact. From the history of this discussion, it seems you have been predisposed about shooting down this article and those reasons seem either lazy or subjective. You have been provided links from independent sources. Is the New York Times not an independent source then? Your arguments are not based on facts whatsoever. 99.124.164.41 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I tried locating some of her shows on the web and you are able to watch one of her Southland episodes on amazon per the network's licensing agreement: ^[6] Watch at least that episode and see that the subject is billed with a credit when credits roll. Background actors do not get billing whatsoever, so don't make false declarations and found your arguments on facts. I suggest you do the same with the rest of her TV credits. 99.124.164.41 (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no one is arguing that she is not in the episodes. The problem is her roles in the episodes are not enough to establish notability. This is a cut and paste of her bio and says she is appearing in one episode of ER. Like I said it's a cut paste of a press release.[24] Ridernyc (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Here is her resume with her talent agency. It does show she has done movies. However, on closer inspection, it is misleading. The "Troy L. Price/ Relentless" movies are done by Relentless Filmworks, which is a company that does "short films" for actors for their resume and casting. The "Antoine Pinson/ ESRA" movies... ESRA stands for Ecole Supérieure de Réalisation Audiovisuelle, a film school. The film, Windsor Park, Camera 2, is actually a very short web series. The other films have the same problems. So, we have an actor that hasn't been in any real films and only one episode of a few TV series. Can't find references to satisfy GNG and she also fails WP:NACTOR, so delete. Bgwhite (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I concur with Daniel in his comments about the persistent use of arguments like WP:EVERYTHING, I have to agree with Bgwhite and !vote Delete. Yes, I do read Spanish and have not found anything that leads me to believe she complies with WP:NACTOR. I could be convinced to change if enough reliable sources are unearthed. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another non-notable working actor/model with an IMDb listing. There is no cultural bias here; I'd say the exact thing if the subject were from Wisconsin or Singapore or Andhra Pradesh or Nairobi. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's judgment to determine a subject's notability is very limited. No other Salvadoran actress with the same preparation as Ms. Vila has ever achieved what people here are calling small roles in several American TV series and none of the editors here seem to be able to prove otherwise. Therefore, this actress in that sense is making Salvadoran history, but Wikipedia seems to disagree. Ridernyc did state she "had small background bit parts on TV shows" and then went on to contradict himself. He/she also continues to say that it's a cut & paste of her bio which is 100% inaccurate. This leads me to believe that Ridernyc does not speak Spanish, so verifying information is lessened. He/she just skimmed through the article and picked up on similar words and then makes a false statement. If I were to read a biography of any "notable" figure, there would be OBVIOUS similarities because it's the life of the same person here, in Bangladesh, Yemen or Quedlinburg. 75.84.223.140 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be presuming that we are making the decision now and for all time. If she did get a more significant role in a TV series or feature film, the article could be recreated and kept. She well might. But we don't keep articles on the basis of the subject's potential accomplishments.

BTW, your intimations that this is some sort of cultural bias thing, to me, would be ripe for reconsideration if you looked at, say, how many articles on Bollywood or Filipino/a actors we have that certainly I, and most other Americans outside those communities, have never heard of. (See this and this) Daniel Case (talk) 13:30, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl of the Pacific[edit]

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

Non notable building. Searches come up with a different building and not the one in this article (very little to zero references). GrayFullbuster (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. I can't find any coverage of this building in reliable sources, or indeed evidence of any kind that this is even a real proposal. The developer is supposedly Federal Land, but their website makes no mention of the project. Camerafiend (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. While I support having a supertall skyscraper taller than the Petronas Towers in my country, there just isn't enough reliable sources at the moment to either establish notability or to even verify it. A search I did for "Pearl of the Pacific" leads to a resort in Boracay. If reliable sources in the future have enough coverage on it, then the article can be created, but for now, it's just simply too soon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:56, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinha Conjecture Prize[edit]

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

A supposed generalization of the Fermat's Last Theorem, devised by a non-mathematician. The proposition is a complete nonsense; in particular:

In x^a + y^b = z^c, if x and y have a common factor, then the whole sum (hence, z^c; hence, z) must be divisible by it - z can't be coprime with either x or y! (I am going to yield the prize to 223.27.210.130, who discovered it before me.) Likewise, when x and y are coprime, z can't have a common factor with either. Suppose z has a common factor with y; then the equation can be re-written as z^c-y^b=x^a; the left side is divisible by the common factor, that means that so is the right side, and so is x - contradicting the assumption that x and y are coprime!
In a section which I have removed to the talk page, the last sentence reads: "It is a new, and of course an unobserved, aspect of positive integers, which has satisfied the relation a^n + b^n = c^n, when n > 2." Pardon me? The recently proven Fermat's Last Theorem says that no such positive integers exist.

A Google search has found nothing relevant, except copies of the Wikipedia article. (Note: There exists a completely unrelated T.N.Sinha's conjecture.) Delete as non-notable crackpottery. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, aside from the mathematical details, I do not see that the notability of the prize has been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Wikipedia purposes, the correctness of the mathematics is not what we need to look at. It's whether that mathematics has been published and passed peer review: a process that is supposed to happen outwith Wikipedia and first. Clearly, this has not. Our no original research policy mandates that we're not in the business of checking things that the world of mathematics has not yet checked. Looking at earlier revisions of the article, I see that the inventor of this conjecture has (it is claimed) solved Beal's conjecture but turned down the money on altruistic grounds, turned ideas of thermal efficiency on their heads, and is designing "a low cost thermonuclear reactor". Looking at the article's talk page, I see from the OTRS permission notice that the source of all of this information is the purported inventor himself, whose WWW site was copied and pasted into this article. And that's the only source, cited or that I have turned up.
Before Wikipedia can report mathematics, said mathematics must have gone through the usual, and proper, processes of formal publication and peer review. Before Wikipedia can state that this person is a cross between Reed Richards and Tony Stark, we need independent and reliable sources saying so. The only person saying these things about this person is this person himself, and we all know the error of believing that. There's a reason that the Primary Notability Criterion excludes autobiographical sources. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources for coverage in mathematical circles nor in the press. The only real source for information is this primary source, of which the article is largely an (OTRS-approved) copy. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-primary sources, no assertion or evidence of notability. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no WP:RS thus fails WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 10:36, 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 delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russell J. Wintner[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wintner's name has been mentioned only in passing in maybe 2 or 3 news articles about digital film or 3D, because he was a mid level manager at Technicolor and an executive at a small film tech company. But to meet the notability criteria, he would have had to have been the subject of these stories, not just a name that cropped up in one sentence for a quote. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 22 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, →TSU ^tp* 15:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant media coverage that I can find. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 29 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, →B music ian 22:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agreed, I'm not finding significant coverage of him either. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 30 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect if someone believes that it could reasonably refer to either the school in Bedford or in Cambridge. Jenks24 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrew's School (Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Andrew's School (Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire)

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

Canoot find evidence this school even exits. Not notable Bleaney (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find evidence of existence either. A difficulty is that the location is so vague, and unfortunately the user who started the article hasn't been active in the six years since starting the article. There are some schools named St Andrews listed here but I don't think it's on there (perhaps someone else could check because my knowledge of Hunts. geography is minimal). It's not listed here or here. —A bit iffy (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't find the school at http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/search.xhtml?page= or http://www.192.com/ The first version of the article gave the location only as Cambridgeshire. I found a http://www.standrewscambridge.co.uk/ St. Andrew's College Cambridge, but it sounds like an entirely different school. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other contributions of Dcs0506 (talk · contribs) included a blatant hoax at keychainland and an uninformative "it sucks!" at mousebreaker. Uncle G (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article for St Andrew's School (Bedford) which this article used to have an external link for. There is also a St Andrew's College in Cambridge, but this is a private sixth form college. Neither of these are (or ever have been) in Huntingdonshire. Bleaney (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. As so often, just enough unsourced information to confuse, so vague as to make it difficult to prove the negative. Two things do for it. One is that it is not possible to trace it through the Department for Education and independent schools are legally required to register. The geographically closest independent school matches are a St Andrew's College in Cambridge and St Andrew's School in Bedford and this is neither of those. The other is the claim that it is a 'church school'. It is not listed by the Diocese of Ely, for the Church of England, nor is it the Roman Catholic School of that name and there is no Methodist school by that name. Mistakes happen and a school might fail to appear on a database search for some reason, but not on all databases independent of each other. --AJHingston (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some one can provide a precise location, and an external website for the school. I would expect a "church school" to be Church of England. Such schools are (I think) invariably volumtary aided or voluntary controlled; in either case it would not be "private". If not a WP:HOAX, it is either misnamed or defunct. In eithger case it would be better to start again. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English counties were re-organised in 1974. Huntingdonshire used to be a county in its own right but in the re-organisation it was subsumed into Cambridgeshire. Dahliarose (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability or even existence.--Charles (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly referring to St Andrews, Bedford, but since that was formed in 1896, is a good few miles away in the next town, probably not. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this, the more I agree with AJHingston that it looks like a hoax, perhaps crafted to create long discussions such as this. It's a pity that a long-since-departed editor removed a Prod notice a few years ago without any explanation.—A bit iffy (talk) 18:10, 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. Jenks24 (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U-Freqs[edit]

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

Article is for a non-notable music label. Label does not represent any notable bands that could pass WP:MUSIC also cannot pass WP:ORG. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 01:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because a music record label is usually a company or a division of a company, WP:ORG is the governing notability standard, and U-Freqs doesn't meet the standard: significant coverage in secondary sources. I can't find any independent sources discussing this label. NJ Wine (talk)
Delete in the present form, notability has not been demonstrated.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this label in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Gongshow ^Talk 08:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 08:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 08:28, 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 no consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Meffert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsuccessful candidate for political office, with no strong claim of notability per WP:POLITICIAN otherwise. Note that in the prior discussion, even two of the four keeps were followed by "at least temporarily", and a third one still used the proximity of the election as its primary rationale for keeping — which means there wasn't even really a particularly strong consensus behind his notability, with just one person arguing that the mere fact of being a candidate should confer permanent notability. As with many other unsuccessful candidates for office, WP:BLP1E also applies here if he can't credibly be shown to be particularly notable for anything else. This was recently nominated for speedy deletion, further, but I've declined that and am bringing it to AFD because of the prior AFD discussion. Delete unless a credible case can be made that he's notable for more than just running as a candidate for office and losing. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2010#District 3, where the linked coverage discusses the race in detail, and the section should be updated to include his name. Plausible search term, mentioned at United States House of Representatives elections, 2010, but only with result. Re-evaluate if elected, meets guidelines, or displaced by another individual. Dru of Id (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important local figure in Minnesota. Though he received much attention for his challenge to Erik Paulsen, WP:BLP1E shouldn't apply here. Meffert was the president of the Minnesota PTA and CEO of the Minnesota Optometric Association for many years. Article is well referenced and meets WP:GNG. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 20:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article meets ALL general requirements of WP:BLP1E. (1) "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Yes: An unsuccessful congressional race. (2) "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Yes: I'm sorry, but Meffert's occupation as the former president of the Minnesota PTA and former employee at the Minnesota Optometric Association is not notable. Not even those organizations have met Wiki notability requirements to justify articles of their own. (3) "It is not the case that the event is significant..." A single Minnesota 2010 congressional race that in no way changed the Minnesota delegation has no historical significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DelDrazo (talk • contribs) 21:58, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gobonobo. – hysteria18 (talk) 19:41, 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) 01:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Dru of Id, and per standard practice at WP:POLITICIAN regarding candidates for notable office who are not themselves notable. The claims that he is notable for his other activities are (pardon me) laughable. Former president of the state PTA? Really? BTW that Minnesota congressional race article needs work; it doesn't seem to list ANY names except the winners; very unusual for such an article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The major party candidates in two party elections are or should be considered notable, even the ones who lose. I consider president of the state (not local PTA) a reasonably plausible claim also--it's a major organization. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 31 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. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Pheonix[edit]

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

Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I am unable to find any verification for the vague references to "two official Star Trek Actors to the show" and "Oscar Award winning teams from J.J. Abrams' film", both of whom "are said to have come back to work on the series". SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article name was misspelled. When you search with "Star Trek: Phoenix", e.g., [25], a bit more coverage turns up. Enough? I don't know. Is there a speedy-delete category for misspelled article names? Yakushima (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I've added a search with the presumably correct spelling. I'm not seeing much there, though. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. A spelling mistake in the title is a reason to move the page to the correct spelling, not delete it. The fact that the original author made a spelling mistake or typo is not a reflection on the notability of the subject. Dricherby (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to correct spelling and clean it up. [26] seems to be a reliable source. It's a two-articles-in-one, but the second half is about 4 paragraphs on this show. It may be at that "enough-to-keep-a-stub" level for now. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:13, 7 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, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move, expand from RS. My best arguments are WP:PLEASEDONT, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING, and mostly WP:HARMLESS. JJB 05:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I have already moved it to the correct title Star Trek: Phoenix. I have noticed that native English speakers seem to be prone to this kind of misspelling, accidentally transposing two adjacent vowels. JIP | Talk 05:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as subject plausibly appears to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. I have somewhat improved this article (categories, cleanup, templates, references, etc.) but more references from reliable sources would go a long way towards shoring up support for this article. - Dravecky (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added the reference I noted above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey, I'm the original author of this article. I didn't think it'd last long, but thanks for letting it stay (for now) and thanks for cleaning it up. I honestly thought that Phoenix was spelled with the O and E switched. Thanks a bunch for keeping my first page alive though. I wanted to contribute a little to Wikipedia a little after using it so much. I thought I could write a page on something I knew something about, but didn't know it would cause so much trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XargothTerran (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 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) 01:04, 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 keep. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rowbotham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is a candidate for Speedy A7 as the article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Article does nothing to establish notability of Rowbotham. Only claim to notability is that he is the author of two books (neither of which are notable enough for their own article) which have been reviewed in a few places. LK (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's certainly a case for notability by WP:AUTHOR: it cites 2 articles/reviews about Goodbye America, here's a third in an academic journal[27], and a NY Observer article partly about the book mentions a review in the Times Literary Supplement[28] (TLS is pay access only). And here's another review of Grip of Death[29]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify which requirement in WP:Author you believe Rowbotham may possibly meet? He clearly does not meet A1,A2,A4,A5, so I'm guessing A3: "created ... a significant or well-known work ... the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I don't see how his books meet that. LK (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Is four reviews not "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not appear notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1) This has been discussed and resolved before (see previous "debate"). In such circumstances the "burden" should be on the person wanting to overturn the previous consensus ruling to show clear evidence why it should be overturned now. (2) If anything current events make the keep even more relevant. (3) In addition to the citations noted above, there are others mentioned in the previous discussion. (4) He presented to the House of Lords. How many authors have done that? That alone creates notability given the prestigious nature of the forum and the rarity of authors being allowed to do so. The supporters of deletion appear to have a very narrow (academic) understanding of "notability" and presumably have never visited nor know about the UK House of Lords. (5) He satisfies A2 and A4. His work is original (with vague similarities to the Social Credit movement but updated for the modern era) and is regularly mentioned on websites as one of the intellectual founders of the modern monetary reform movement (see this movement and Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown that mentions Rowbotham multiple times as a key figure in the modern monetary reform movement). NOTE: A2 and A4 do not themselves need the movements they start to be "mainstream" or commonly accepted. They simply need to exist. So questioning the "credibility" of the sources provided above is not directly relevant to the issue. The mere existence of the movements and the reference to Rowbotham should be sufficient for A4. Illuminatit (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC) — Illuminatit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Procedural Comment Illuminatit has only edited this AfD discussion and appears to be a sock. LK (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability (or lack thereof) of speaking at that location is well discussed in the previous deletion discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment He also satisfies A1. He is often cited by his peers. "Peers" by definition would have to be non academic monetary reformers (such as those writing for Prosperity UK). It could not mean "academic economists" as Rowbotham is not (obviously) an academic. NOTE: A1 cannot mean "you need to be cited by academics" because (obviously) authors can be non-academic and still be cited by "peers" and thereby satisfy A1. Illuminatit (talk) 14:19, 19 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) 01:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the reviews of his books, the article meets A3 of WP:AUTHOR: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. NJ Wine (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's full cites for 2 more reviews of his books:
- Stretch marks (Review of Blowback by Charles Johnson and Goodbye America by Michael Rowbothan). Perkin, Harold (Prof.). The Times Literary Supplement (London, England), Friday, July 27, 2001; pg. 24; Issue 5130. (1890 words)
- Matters of life and debt (Review of The Wealth of the World and the Poverty of Nations by Daniel Cohen and The Grip of Death by Michael Rowbotham). Coates, Barry. The Times Literary Supplement (London, England), Friday, April 21, 2000; pg. 31; Issue 5064. (1495 words)

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to one of the suggested targets. Jenks24 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of entitlement[edit]

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

This is a textbook neologism. It is entirely unreferenced opinion, the only cite being a single non-WP:RS opinion piece. It is very poorly written, but even if rewritten, would likely never be able to meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. The article seems to exist simply to propagate use of the term and to push a single point of view. Loonymonkey (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination rationale. This is a short essay based on a phrase, not an article about a topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into entitlement. "Culture of entitlement" is a widely discussed topic in political circles, but the lack of references in this article, and the discussion of the sociological effects of entitlement in the current entitlement article suggests that these two articles can be merged. NJ Wine (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the term is invariably used by conservative critics to challenge the basic idea of the modern welfare state, Criticisms of welfare#Libertarian and conservative criticisms is a much better merge target. --Lambiam 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to criticisms of welfare or entitlement. It is a commonly-used phrase (as is "entitlement society") but it seems only to exist as a term of abuse. The current article is a bit essayistic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay about a neologism. That the first "expert" quoted at length on this topic is a candidate for President of the United States indicates the likely intent of this piece as 2012 campaign fooliganism. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge manually if there's anything worth saving. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced political POV rather than actual term used in scholarly literature. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Lacks significant coverage in RS, runs afoul of WP:NEO & WP:NOR.--JayJasper (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It is, in the main, very well written (once you take away those PoV quotes-eg Romney's sweeping aside of the commonsense knowledge that the recipients of entitlement benefit from entitlement, with the Big Lie/"Huh? I don't understand that, so it must be true" that only the government benefits). But good luck finding sources to back up the assertions. The quotes are very biased indeed, and it is not 'balanced' to show two opposing biases. The mainstream view will be somewhere in between. A selective Merge of the material to Entitlement would also be acceptable. Anarchangel (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--See War on women for a precedent of keeping precisely this sort of article.William Jockusch (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Carrite has it right when he/she says its an original essay. Doesn't appear in any scholarly literature or even widespread in newspapers. Not a term of art either. At worst, this could be included in an election article about issues up for debate, but as a term onto itself? Probably not. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:56, 29 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. Jenks24 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia (Cindy) Todd[edit]

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

Cynthia Todd is not notable at all. Furthermore, this article has a complete lack of verifiability since WP:IS states that a person's employer cannot be used as an independent source. NJ Wine (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral... for now. Full of conflicts of interests (can't find sources about this person in widespread sources), likely violations of how biographies of living people must be (private life?), possible self-awareness (not that I'm accusing the subject of self-promotion), and... I don't know. However, there must be an explanation for this article. --George Ho (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the creator of the article is probably someone (e.g., student, parent) affiliated with Westlake High School. The article contains a large amount of personal and professional info about Cynthia Todd which is not available through any website that I could find. From what I've read, I'm thinking that she is a popular administrator (yearbook advisor) at the high school, and someone there decided that she deserved a Wikipedia article. I view this kind of article as a violation of Wikipedia's noble cause policy -- basically being a good person and doing good things in a community does not make a person notable. NJ Wine (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* Why are essays policies? Nevertheless, "noble cause" must be considered. --George Ho (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unfortunate that she has no potenetial to be known to published reliable sources. Delete. --George Ho (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a high school teacher/yearbook adviser is not a sign of notability. In fact, it would be difficult for a person to achieve Wikipedia-level notability in that occupation. Most likely this article was written by one of the subject's students as a tribute to their teacher, but it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. Arguably this could be a speedy delete because I'm not even sure the article contains a claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verging on speedy under A7. Zero coverage in reliable sources, utterly non-notable person. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above; not notable at all. Give your teacher an apple if you like her, not a Wikipedia page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I thought speedy even. No coverage. Metropolitan90's argument is sound. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regretfully. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, no coverage in independent reliable sources. A7 does not apply IMO because there is a claim to significance in the "occupations" section. →B music ian 06:05, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jpylyzer[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 09:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeletePer Dennis The Tiger. Also unreferenced and not very informative.--Chip123456 (talk) 19:39, 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) 00:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:NSOFT criteria. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:38, 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 delete all. Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena-Edge rivalry[edit]

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

Non-notable, undue weight, original research, content covered in existing Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_85#Triple H-Undertaker rivalry and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Rivalry pages. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following similar pages by the same creator for the same reasons:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 22. Snotbot t • c » 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Unencyclopaedic overanalysis of television storylines from an in-universe perspective + per nominator's arguments. The fact that the information may be accurate is irrelevant. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete two, weak keep for Austin vs McMahon. As the Austin-McMahon conflict was the staple of the Attitude Era which eventually led to the end of the Monday Night Wars and the dissolving of WCW and ECW, I'd say that Austin-McMahon can stay if it is made a little more encyclopaedic and less of a history lesson. – Richard BB 10:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Austin-McMahon rivalry is already covered in large and detailed sections of Stone_Cold_Steve_Austin and Vince McMahon and mentioned in the Austin article's lead paragraph. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, "content covered in existing Wikipedia articles". --Hydao (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Can not even incorporate material as articles were created simulacrum from existing pages. Papacha (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are other rivalries on Wikipedia including Austin/McMahon, John Cena/Edge and Triple H/Undertaker--Mjs1991 (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those three articles are being considered here as a group. They are similar enough and the reasons for nominating each are the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward A. "Ted" Fontaine[edit]

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

Person without evidence of notability. The awards are all about the company, which could possibly be a separate article. Promotional tone used in article. Dmol (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. None of the references are independent sources, and some only barely discuss Fontaine. Furthermore, I agree with Dmol that this article seems like an advertisement. NJ Wine (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage about him at Google News]. --MelanieN (talk) 13:56, 30 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) 03:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-talk Identification, Questioning & Revision (SIQR)[edit]

Advanced search for:
"Self-talk Identification, Questioning and Revision"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Hopeless confussed essay, advocated a theoretical program of some sort. The references are very general. If anyone claims to understand it well enough to make an encyclopedia article out of it, I'll withdraw the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly convinced that that's impossible. Rajah524 (talk · contribs) wrote this article, and that also happens to be the electronic mail address of Rodger Garrett, the inventor of this claimed therapy. (See Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous/Archive 2#Removed reference to Garrett.) Another of M. Garrett's pseudonyms is "SighKoBlahGrr", and as that xe is all over the WWW with this invention. But, when all of the web-logs, Amazon book reviews, and so forth are removed, there's nothing. There's no peer-reviewed published medical literature. There isn't even anything informal. There's no evidence that all of the self-promotion has paid off in any way. There's no evidence that anyone at all has acknowledged this idea let alone documented it independently. This is one person's idea that hasn't yet escaped its creator to become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. It is thus original research.
I note for completeness why I didn't bother checking what is cited on the list of references. I am familiar with some of the works listed, and they most definitely do not document an invention by one Rodger Garrett. I took it that therefore none of the others did, either, and that this wasn't a proper reference list as one would expect in an encyclopaedia. (The text of the article indicates this, too.) I did, however, do some literature searches.
Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete · I say "Weak" because I'm not familiar with this field, but I tried looking in several of the specialized search engines offered by ((search for)) with the terms "siqr garrett" and found nothing related to the topic of the article, which seems highly unlikely if this were a genuine scientific or therapeutic topic that met the standards for Wikipedia notability. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 04:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:No original research and WP:NEO. It's surprising how many different meanings there are for "SIQR"; but I do not find the necessary substantial, independent comment about this one. Google Books shows Self-Talk Identification, Questioning & Revision (Siqr) by "Blossom Meghan Jessalyn" published by Sess Press, but according to VDM Publishing#Multiplication of imprint names this is one of 78 Mauritian imprints devoted to republishing Wikipedia articles, and Ms Jessalyn alone is credited with 610. It would be interesting to know how she spun this article out to 128 pages. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 29 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.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dj many

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dj many[edit]

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

does not meet notability criteria, relies on primary sources, page is an orphan Myrtlegroggins (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and the magazine articles aren't really from "major" news sources. Sarah (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I notified the author of the page about the possible deletion. The author replied on the user talk page and suggested Djmany has notability because of his presence at Twitter.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 10:01, 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) 00:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Many & Dj Many. (not sure how force no redirect)Dru of Id (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a presence on Twitter and YouTube does not demonstrate notability. At all. Anyone can upload a video of almost anything, or gain a "following" on Twitter. If a video of this guy goes viral enough to be mentioned in notable secondary sources (i.e. a magazine review), then this page may have a chance for survival. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black Taxi (band)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:BAND: no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, though I could find coverage in some blogs; both albums appear to have been self-released on iTunes; no awards; no indication of significant airplay, etc. Scopecreep (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at this point. Sarah (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough significant coverage appears to exist in reliable sources [30][31][32][33] such that the subject meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 22:51, 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) 00:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say it satisfies at least #1 and #8 of WP:BAND, per the links above. Buggie111 (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this act meets guidelines #1 (has received significant non-trivial press regarding the band, their albums, and concerts), #4 (has received non-trivial press regarding their nation-wide tour), #7 (have become one of the more prominent representatives of a style or scene) - Black Taxi's are definitely at the forefront of the indie-punk / dance-punk fusion genre, especially in Brooklyn/NYC and are repeatedly noted in local and national music press as being among NYC's most prominent indie bands, especially within their genre. #8 (won or been nominated for a major award) - their music video was nominated and won a Webby, which are considered the Oscars of the internet. #10 & #11. #10 indicates notability by having a song used as the theme song for a major television show. Although Black Taxi has not had one of their songs used a theme song for a TV show, their songs have appeared in TV shows, and the band has performed live on TV. #11 refers to radio play, Black Taxi's songs have received national radio airplay.

I agree the band is not superstar yet, but they are definitely up-and coming, as evidenced by their sold out tours, and recent major festival appearances. This article may appear sparse now, but I believe this artist's article deserves to be kept, and will continue to grow as they become more notable.keivspare (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 29 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. (non-admin closure) →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 01:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Eriksson[edit]

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

BLPPROD was removed (by author) so cant re-add. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG and not even referenced →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions} 13:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You could have restored the BLPPROD & warned the user with ((subst:uw-blpprod1)) seeing as he didn't add any references before removing. It's not the same as an ordinary PROD the user must add a reference before removing. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs to be cleaned up, of course, and cited, but Eriksson is notable enough to have his own article, I think. Sarah (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unreferenced BLP. As this is an article about a person, it should be sourced no matter what. If he is found to be notable according to Wikipedia guidelines, I will still support deletion if the article isn't referenced. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per Colapeninsula's work. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 22 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) 00:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some refs (I didn't check Swedish sources though). He's been involved in a lot of projects outside Peter Bjorn and John. The article does need a lot of work, though, even with simple things like formatting. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This topic passes WP:GNG, per:

Goodman, William (October 26, 2010.) "Peter, Bjorn, & John's New 'Pure Pop Rock' Album." Spin Magazine.
Halperin, Shirley (February 22, 2008). "In the Studio: Peter Bjorn and John". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved May 23, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
Lucas, John (May 17, 2007). "Peter Bjorn and John". Georgia Straight. Retrieved May 23, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Sterdan, Darryl (April 14, 2009). "No Writer's Block for Peter Bjorn and John". Canoe.ca. Retrieved May 23, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:08, 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel Records[edit]

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

Record label without references. Can't find any good on-line references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to fail GNG. Sarah (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This record label has existed at least since the early 1950s (going back so far as to release 78rpm discs), and has hundreds of releases. Several notable artists have appeared on this label over the years. Agreed the article needs a lot of help. The Both Sides Now site should be used as a reference, and not merely as an external link. I'll make this a personal priority to improve this article. 78.26 (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the references improve, it's acceptable to keep. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Adventist label goes back to 1955, and has sources under the later name "Chapel Music" -- [34], [35]. -- 202.124.75.88 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1 is a mention and essentially trivial. 2 isn't much better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first listing there looks good; the second I'm not sold on. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The label goes back to at least 1953 as Chapel Records. 1955 is when ownership was acquired by Pacific Press. Previously the label was called Cathedral Records, and it's initial name was Sabbath Music. Unfortunately, I have no way to prove this last point except my own original research. 78.26 (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC) OK, further research indicates the label goes back to 1948, found source for Sabbath Music, and Cathedral was not predecessor, but was issued simultaneously. I never knew that! 78.26 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it matters how far back in time it goes, although at some point it would be notable for being the first record label ever. What matters is its references. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The point is the references are revealing more/correct information. 78.26 (talk) 16:01, 23 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) 00:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really close to a copyvio of a terse listing at Discogs.com. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to comment Discogs.com probably copied the information from Wikipedia. Like Wikipedia, anyone can edit Discogs.com, so I don't consider it a reliable source. 78.26 (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple decades of existence and close association with the 7th Day Adventist movement makes this a pretty important label to keep, in my estimation, obvious shortcomings of the piece being obvious. "Chapel Records Presents Choral Arts Society of Japan" is from a 1966 publication, Pacific Union Recorder, documenting part of the length of the label's tenure and its proximity to the Adventist movement. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This PRESS RELEASE doesn't go towards notability here but should definitely be mined for the article, indicating the May 1955 General Conference of the Adventist Church gave Chapel Music to Pacific Press Publishing Association and that some 400 individuals and artists have been put out by the label over the years. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current name seems to be Chapel Music, I note, so in the event this closes a Keep a name change may be in order. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to overhaul by 78.26. I feel the information is now verifiable and notability demonstrated. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:33, 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Willmott (composer and audio engineer)[edit]

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

A composer and sound engineer. Has released an album on his own record company, 'Send and Receive Records'. It is the only record I can find the the company has released. He is part of a band called, Life in Literature, but the website says nothing. Worked as an assistant post-production engineer on a few movies. Prod was contested because "removed deletion banner because there was incorrect information about willmott's music being self released". Information on his own website says otherwise. Bgwhite (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no independent, secondary, reliable sources about this person. Illia Connell (talk) 03:40, 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) 00:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that the subject has "been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (WP:BASIC). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:19, 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. I cannot determine a consensus here, or which of the reasons for keep or delete are more valid. NFCC is a valid concern, but exactly how this falls foul of that policy is not well explained. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of the U.S. cities[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTGALLERY Wikipedia is not a collection of images seperated from meaningful explanative prose. Also an non-free image farm. Over a dozen of these are non-free and several probably are non-free but are tagged otherwise. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of the flags fail WP:NFG, and many flags are probably wrongly tagged as free. If you delete a large portion of the flags, the article becomes useless. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If "lots" of the flags are non-free or "probably wrongly tagged as free", feel free to remove them and improve the article. But before doing so, which of them are actually as such. It's sure easier to just say "delete" than it is to correct and improve articles. The logic here is flawed, because even if some of the images fail a guideline, that doesn't confer to the entire article being removed from the encyclopedia based upon only some of the content in the article being unsuitable per policies and guidelines. See also WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless you group virtually all of the articles in Category:Lists of flags within this AfD. Not suggesting an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but rather a larger discussion on the presence of all articles of this type needs to occur. Also should ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology for their input. No comment on the non-free images. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that this would necessitate including NFC content without comment, this list is unsustainable on WP via WP:NFCC. Individual city flags can be included on the city's page where one expects discussion to occur, but this will be an outright gallery and unallowable. If similar pages exist, they should also be deleted, based on the idea that not all flags (city, country, national) are free imagery and thus will always become a non-free imagery gallery. --MASEM (t) 21:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - It's interesting that the article Flags of the United States is permissible, yet this article is somehow non-permissible, because of the current state of the article. I find it a useful list article that is discriminate and provides functional information. The article also functions as a list of U.S. Cities for navigational purposes. Perhaps users should consider expanding the article, adding a table with text entries to accompany the city flag images, and adding sources. This would be easy to do, and would then be similar to the formatting of the "Flags of the United States" article. This would be a better option compared to removing the content entirely from the encyclopedia based upon the article's current formatting. Perhaps AfD has become a forum to discuss removal of information for the sake of removal, rather than improving the actual content. It's a relatively new article (created on November 12, 2011); why the rush to delete? Why not consider improving the article? Of course, deletion is much easier than performing research and expanding articles. Removal of this article is a disservice to the encyclopedia. Almanacs have listings such as this, and Wikipedia also functions as an almanac (see WP:5). This article could easily be improved, and as such, should remain in place. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That article has the same problem. There are actually numerous flag galleries that are a problem across WP. This case is only focused on this one page. Navigation by visual elements is not acceptable on WP (per why we disallow images in lists of discographies or episode lists). --MASEM (t) 13:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)c[reply]

If the formatting of the article is that problematic, then very simply remove the images in question entirely, while retaining the information, per WP:PRESERVE. Convert the article to a table format and add in information regarding each city's flag, to expand the article. Then simply omit the asserted non-free images, which appear to be a distinct minority of the overall images in the article. It is sensible to have a list article for U.S. city flags on Wikipedia. For example, see Flags of the U.S. states, a very, very similar article that exists in the encyclopedia because it's encyclopedic. Again, Wikipedia also functions as an almanac, per Wikipedia's Five pillars. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:47, 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, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because many of these articles currently contain only images, it doesn't mean that the can't include prose about the flags as well... In the case of the American flag, lots of good stuff can be found at "history of united states flag" on Google. I'm sure a similar thing could be done with this article.--Coin945 (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The goal of having every American city's flag on one page, as the title implies, is rather quixotic. The potential analog List of cities in the United States is instructive—we're not going to attempt to list every American city in one page, because that's ridiculous, and more so if you were to include an image for each one. It's also problematic because the definition of a city can vary wildly across the country. Usable images of a city's flag belong on the articles for the corresponding cities, unless the city flag is notable enough for its own article (DC, NYC, LA, etc.). --BDD (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The policy cited in the nomination pretty clearly says that WP is not for this kind of image display. That there are others does not justify this one. As mentioned an image of each flag can, and probably should, be on its city's article for people who are interested. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gallery of images, many of which are identified as nonfree, without any substantive text. Better handled as a category anyway. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the relevant "rules" that likely will decide this issue. But the "rules", whatever they are, are not what's important. What's important is that we're an encylopedia, damnit, and this is just the sort of thing that a good encyclopedia will include. Having these images here for a child to gaze at, clicking on the links to the city articles, sparking her interest in geography, what greater goal can we aspire to? I've many times wondered why we had "articles" that were actually just lists--why can some works like this get by without a separate Wikipedia "list", while others like this must have a list? I mean, where are our priorities? A challenge to those of you who are voting "Delete": I ask you, do you believe that this is more important to provide access to, than the page under discussion here? Please, don't cite rules to me, just answer that question: Which is more important and more worthy of inclusion in the World's Encyclopedia? HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I know this is the exact opposite of what you wanted to hear, but you're making a textbook "other stuff exists" argument (cf. WP:OTHERSTUFF). AFD is all about applying Wikipedia's rules to individual cases. You may as well ask a judge to ignore the law and rule on gut feelings instead. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not for nothing that WP:IAR exists. Even judges are allowed some discretion (more in some jurisdiction than others). Anyway, the prime directive is to improve the encyclopedia, and to not let the rules stand in the way of that. I know the rules exist for a good reason, but there are rare occasions when the rules are the problem, not the solution. I just think this is one of those times. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I just read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Yeah, you're right--that was what I was doing. And you're right, it's not a good argument. So I retract that argument, which is easy for me to do, because it was never my intended premise. What I'm about is not that there's other crap in here, it's that I affirmatively believe that this should exist, for the improvement of the encyclopedia and the benefit of our readers.

I've owned a number of dictionaries and encyclopedias over the years (my first being the 1958 World Book). Sometime in the 1970s, I purchased a largely staid reference work--I don't remember if it was one of those drier encylopedias or a dictionary, but I do remember my brother mocking my purchase because it had those color plates inserted in various places, things like state flowers, minerals, and international flags. He said that was proof it was not a serious work. I was momentarily embarrassed by his snobbish criticism, but years later, as our families grew, I noticed that children's interest in these works was initially founded in these plates. And their interest wasn't just in the pictures, their interest led to other questions, which led to lots of connected learning.

All I'm saying is that this encyclopedia is the World Book of our time, that we are the repository of the world's knowledge, with the aim of providing "every single person on the planet . . . free access to the sum of all human knowledge." This is a piece of that, regardless of whether it fits in the rules or not. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agreee with that. It is my firm belief that we have moved far beyond a mere encyclopedia, and should stop thinking of ourselves as one. We are now the creators of the hub of all knowledge, and must create content as such.--Coin945 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate part of my comment, though—it's just not practical to have a collection of the flags of all US cities, even if we could come up with a uniform definition of a US city. Not all such cities will even have flags. We can look at existing articles for an example of how these topics should be handled. List of sovereign states, List of U.S. states, and List of U.S. state birds all have inline pictures along with other content, but I just don't see how we could make this article work like that. You'd need clear inclusion criteria. Perhaps we could shoehorn pictures into List of United States cities by population, but the article as is just isn't going to cut it. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I consider this an encyclopedic topics. As with list articles, it needs a definition of what cities are large enough to include. That some of the cities to be included might not have flags does not mean that having an article on the ones that do is in some way improper. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook WP:NOTGALLERY case. Galleries belong at Wikimedia Commons. As also noted, for copyright and scope reasons the gallery cannot ever be complete, which leaves us with an useless random selection. Sandstein 18:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Husky and DGG. Encyclopedias usually have such articles. I know, it sounds like OTHERSTUFF, but let me explain. As a comprehensive encyclopedia, Wikipedia should offer at least what a major, traditional, printed encyclopedia have offered. We're not the hub of all and everything, but a reasonably short article on the flags of state capital citiess and those over 200,000 in population should be notable. It needs fixing, such as prose and sourcing, SO lets FIXIT. Likewise, it should NOT just be a GALLERY. How and when to fix this has me in a quandry, but not whether it should be included. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Newton[edit]

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

This subject lacks notability (WP:BIO) —Danorton (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Lacking notability"? Really? That is the reason why she is a host on a channel that has over 400 THOUSAND subscribers, and 91 MILLION video views. Every video has over 100 thousand views (except ones that have been recently uploaded). Also she has been featured on Huffington Post on an article she covered. If this article does get deleted, I suggest making Philip DeFranco#SourceFed its stand alone article and merging this one with that. Soulboost (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and thanks for nominating, I've been thinking of doing so for a while. That the Youtube channel is (possibly) notable does not mean that all hosts are automatically notable. (The article of another cohost for the channel was recently deleted in AfD.) The only source hinting at any kind of notability for this person in the Huffington Post one, and one source doesn't constitute significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 05:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Actually, being a host on a POPULAR web news show that earns thousands and millons views on 5 stories (Mon-Thur) is notable. 4-7 million weekly from Mon-Thursday news videos the Friday Comment Commentary, the saturday & sunday videos (Curb Cash, Bloopers, Behind the Scenes) and the One on One videos. Just go to these stats websites for the staggering numbers.[36] [37] Also if you try to argue that its the show SourceFed and not Lee Newton than just realize that Lee Newton is a HOST on SourceFed and has 400-600k people watching her from Mon-Thurs. And if this page is deleted which it shouldn't, then get the SourceFed coverage from Wikipedia, make into its own article since it has enough refs and whatnot and merge this with that, as I previously stated.

"being a host on a POPULAR web news show [...] is notable" Please show the policy that supports this assertion? We're not talking about the dictionary definition of "notable", but about Wikipedia's definition which is pretty narrowly defined. I know this can seem like pointless hoop-jumping, but them's the rules, and though rules can be changed, until they are changed they need to be applied. And as a matter of fact I'm not arguing that the show is notable, either. Here's some good info about notability for web content. --bonadea contributions talk 19:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is in wikipedias criteria for entertainers WP:ENT - Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment

-- Im pretty sure that Newton fits into the entertainers as she is a youtube celebrity and she fits into the second because she has a large fanbase. If you watch a couple of the Comment Commentary there are tons of fans sending her and her co-hosts things. Threre are several comments that mention Lee. Just to prove how big a fanbase they have is that they made Lee one of the most popular write-in candidates on Maxim Hot 100. Again, if the article is deleted at least give SourceFed its own article and merge this with that as I stated before. Soulboost (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some third party reliable sources to backup your claims above. Things such as stat pages, youtube profiles or your original research (lots of which you've provided in this AFD) are not these. Currently only the only ones in the article that qualify are Huffingtonpost and maxium, I can't find her on the askmen list. One is trivial coverage from a user based vote, and the other is about a show she is in (not about her), and both mention the show has a fanbase, not her. So currently fails all applicable notability policies (WP:GNG+WP:ENTERTAINER. Also applicable here is WP:INHERITED.--Otterathome (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the Maxim ref is a trivial mention (even though it's in a reliable source). --bonadea contributions talk 07:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maxim has named her #57 on there top 100, since they recognize her, and I'm not saying Maxim's a great literary read, after being in print some 15 plus years because of a large following I think she meets, or shortly will meet wikipedias' standards for entertainers. Yes the article can use work, perhaps could be tagged as a stub for now but should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So because she came #57 in a public vote on a mens magazine website because her friends told people to vote her, and she's going to be popular soon, she's notable? What a terrible argument that doesn't address the problem and is using a crystal ball.--Otterathome (talk) 21:12, 22 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, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources now in the article and above arguments. The Steve 11:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on above arguments, notability of the person is question is defensible.user: ter890 talk~ter890~ 17:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have closed this as "keep" earlier, but reversed the closure as it seemed to be controversial. →B music ian 22:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would encourage !voters to take a look at the sources and form their own opinion on whether the existing sources actually meet WP:RS or not, and whether there is significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I still feel that there isn't such coverage, per my own and Otterathome's comments above. --bonadea contributions talk 08:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with bonadea that the existing sources aren't good enough. In addition I checked HighBeam Research, a search engine for 6,500 contemporary publications such as newspapers and magazines. Any person or concept of any recent notability would be likely to have some sort of mention in this huge resource. But a search for <"lee newton" youtube> or <"lee newton" sourcefed> throws up nothing. This is sheer WP:RECENTISM. —SMALL JIM 12:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of her being on maxim hot 100 list. that is notable to be in a widely published magazine. Angletests (talk) 15:36, 31 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. Jenks24 (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lights[edit]

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

An unsigned band that really doesn't seem to have any notability. They have two claims of notability, that they won "The Strangers" best band in Seattle, and that a Seattle radio station placed one of their albums in a "Best Of" list. The former, I can find no evidence of, and the latter alone isn't enough to pass WP:BAND. The actual references included in the article are very strange, as the one at Allmusic is not about this band at all, but instead about a female singer who debuted in 2008, and the link to what is supposed to be the band's official site is instead what appears to be a German site dedicated to light-themed photography. Trying to search for sources on my own only brings up blogs, personal sites, and mirrors of this wikipedia article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Allmusic link is fixed; the band has a bio on the site and one of their albums is reviewed. Also worthy of note are [38] (a short KEXP album review), a review from Dusted, and another review from PopMatters. Chubbles (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure there are situations where an unsigned band meets notability requirements, but this ain't it. Keep trying, boys, when you make it to the big time, we'll be happy to add a Wiki article for you. Until then, however...JoelWhy (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WikiProject Albums indicates that Allmusic, PopMatters, and Exclaim! are reliable sources for album reviews, so it would seem they - [39][40][41] - demonstrate enough coverage to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 22:28, 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) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two sources using Highbeam, one in The Stranger and one in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. I will add them to the article in the next day or two. Too tired right now. The Steve 11:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - 3 citations added from Seattle newspapers. Oh, and The Stranger really likes this band - they have 5 or so articles about them.

Keep. Clearly notable via the coverage already found. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 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.