Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 29

< 28 December	30 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 01:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chip-Wrecked

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

Limited sourcing for a future film. No indication "principle photography" (or similar) has begun. Disputed (removed without comment) prod. SummerPhD (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently mostly speculation and/or wishful thinking. The IMDB listing doesn't even give it this title. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Crystal and per WP:NFF. I would have said Incubate if it had any sources at all to prove it's information true. If any sources are added to the article, then I might just change it to Incubate. − Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:Crystal. Sumsum2010·T·C 01:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with haste per WP:CRYSTAL, title isn't confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and plain timing; even if this was announced right this moment it's not going to make the December 16 release date at this point. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nate... that's December 16, 2011. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but it's a 3D/computer animated movie. It takes more than eleven months to put one of those together. Nate • (chatter) 03:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With the computer and software advances available in even the last few months, it is conceivable that a 3-D film can be completed in far shorter order than even 2 years ago, so I would not be too quick to discount that possibility. However, and as I opined below, it is getting coverage and filming is planned to begin soon, and incubation gets it out of mainspace so it might be worked on in preparing for a return. If the film is cancelled, so will be the incubated article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Alvin and the Chipmunks: 3D because that is what the IMDB entry says. And trim out the WP:CRYSTAL ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 05:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Incubate as Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D per WP:TOOSOON. Under its correct title Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D (thank you Matthewrbowker), it IS getting coverage,[1] but not quite enough to merit being an exception to WP:NFF. BUT, as it does appear that principle filming may begin quite soon,[2] we can use the guideline encouraged option to keep it on standbye in the incubator and allow it to be expanded and sourced until ready for mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Lindy Silo

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

Unsourced BLP on girl who won local beauty contest in the Philippines. Prodded and deprodded a couple of times, speedy declined, forcing an AFD. Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deelte, other than the fact that she won the pageant, nothing in the article seems to be verifiable. (I can't find any reliable sources for it, anyway.) Apart from that, I don't think that winning this local beauty pageant, or a "short lived" job at a radio station, confer notability.--Beloved Freak 11:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the claim for notability is weak at best. There is no coverage in reliable sources. Her win in a local beauty pageant is not significant, and her career in media has been brief, and more importantly, not noted by any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art Dahlberg

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

Does not appear to pass notability guidelines. I originally PRODded it since there were no references and I could find none, but most of references since provided are about relatives. There are a couple of photos at [3] but this falls short of multiple published secondary sources. Jll (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He seems to be a an interesting person with an interesting family tree. However, there is no coverage about him in reliable sources. The sources in the article are used to verify information about his interesting relatives, and not him. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to indicate that he is notable (but I would love to see an article about his grandfather, Arthur C. Dahlberg). As for "Art" (as he is referred to throughout the article - another example of Melanie's Law), the article supplies no sources about him, and I could find none in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Walker (American football)

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

This guy never played in the NFL and didnt do much notable at Vanderbilt. Andy4226uk (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Andy4226uk (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:ATHLETE since he didn't appear in a game (he was apparently only on the St. Louis Rams' practice roster), and I found nothing in a quick Google News search to indicate that he passes WP:GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Notability assured and sources were expanded. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 20:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Collins (American football)

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

This guy seems to fail WP:Athlete, he is a very unnotable College football player, nothing more than that. Andy4226uk (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm usually pretty strict on stuff like this, but a starting quarterback at a major college power? There are plenty of sources out there, perhaps hundreds. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - expanded sources now added by myself and Cbl62. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wizardman. CPerked (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs sourced, needs updated, needs lots--but the guy is notable for sure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is quite a bit of non-trivial coverage of Collins college football career. He played four years at quarterback for Oklahoma and meets the general notability standards. Cbl62 (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Strikehold (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Littleton

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

Losing candidate in a primary election, has never held office and this is the only claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guideline for politicians and no other claim of notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CPerked (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability claimed. Dimitrii (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Plenty of coverage (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barcade

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

Procedural nomination. Contested PROD by COI editor, and while I didn't place the original prod, I don't see anything beyond routine, local coverage. Spammy. Courcelles 21:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Courcelles is travelling (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes the notability guidelines; the references in the article show it has received extensive coverage in many reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robofish. CPerked (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW Keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership

It is with great dismay that I nominate these articles for deletion since I've worked on updating them, but I now think these should go. They are basically just rehashings and copyings of the official APTA reports. While it is a reliable source, it doesn't belong in a separate article. There are already lists of commuter rail, light rail, and heavy rail transit systems in the US/North America. WP:NOT#STATS. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand its a list of stats. Stats are useful and they are presented using WP:CITE and meet WP:V. Maybe duplication but still useful. --Takamaxa (Talk) 02:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Once again an editor is under the impression tat WP:NOT and WP:NOT#STATS somehow "bans" statistics. It doesn't and even states guidelines on how to present them. From WP:NOT#STATS: "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." That's exactly what these articles do and even more so than the example cited in WP:NOT#STATS. In actuality it is a valid argument to say "Keep per WP:NOT#STATS." --Oakshade (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are well-sourced and well-presented factual lists that, as Oakshade says, are perfect examples of how statistical articles should be presented on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Wikipedia:Lists & Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep --Jkfp2004 (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation Portable successor

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

This article oddly looks well developed at the first glance of a typical reader, but this article is a steaming pile of WP:CRYSTAL in true form. Almost all of the references come from one source, Kotaku, and personally the article should just wait until more news sources pop up that are not from Kotaku. By the way, the article states it's NOT CONFIRMED by Sony. SixthAtom (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons above. It may have reliable sources, but it's just sourced speculation. Nothing is concretely announced, and even the quotes from Sony are vague and pointless. Sergecross73 msg me 21:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, sources confirm nothing. WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:CRYSTAL states ^{"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."} Now, I may be reading this wrong, but from what I understand, it says this is ok. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above WP:CRYSTAL states ^{"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."}In addition the device has been confirmed to exist by the senior vice president of Electronic Arts, with pictures of the actual development kit being leaked by VG247 and has been corroborated by not only Kotaku but by IGN as well. The reason why most of the sources are from Kotaku is that, they have a better archiving system, which allowed me to backtrack and find older relevant articles and expand it significantly. It is possible to add several sources that are not from Kotaku, however it just requires more work and reports on pretty much the same stories. The Wall Street Journal has also reported of a new gaming device from Sony while the head of SCE Worldwide Studios has said that they are developing new PlayStation hardware.KiasuKiasiMan 07:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is claiming that it won't exist. I'm sure it does/will. It's just that there isn't a single piece of information concretely known that isn't speculation. It doesn't have a single confirmed game, or even a name yet. My first reaction to coming to the page was "Wow, I didn't know so much was known!". After reading it though, I didn't learn a thing. The whole article is "Random video game company/blog says it exists" and "Well, it could have these specs...". It's not useful at all, and once the thing is actually announced, all this sort of junk is going to be deleted in favor of real information and games. Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Arts isn't just any random video game company, it is one of the largest around the fact that they acknowledge it exists is quite proof enough that such a device exists here and now just not publicly known. Also the facts may not be concrete but it is corroborated by several different sources from different sites which gives it some sort of credibility. Leaked prototype shots further support that such a device already exists and as such it is fair to create an article about it. It is also not the first time an article such as this was created and kept, what I'm referring to is a technology device that is not officially confirmed but is widely reported on by multiple reliable sources and I'm referring to the iPad article as an example.KiasuKiasiMan 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said "various", not "random". I'm not discrediting any of the companies or blogs in the article. I'm just saying that none of them say anything of any concrete/confirmed, substance. (For example, EA is merely saying it "exists", not "we're porting Sims 3 to it.") Just because it may exist, doesn't mean it automatically qualifies for an article. See WP:EXISTENCE Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I don't know. As far as unconfirmed things go, this seems to be pretty well "covered" by press. WP:CRYSTAL is when we speculate, this is press speculating. On one hand it's a notable topic once released and will garner much press, on the other hand it's not officially announced. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Endless sources available to document this. CPerked (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2010 (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) 18:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article needs to conform better with WP:VG/S, i.e. Kotaku is not a reliable source and the article shouldn't have to tell the reader what is reliable. « ₣M₣ » 19:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Correction - Kotaku is a situational source. --Teancum (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. Koblizek (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just get rid of the synthesis. Marcus Qwertyus 03:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm going to have to agree with KiasuKiasiMan on this one. If this article was based solely from video game blogs such as Kotaku, I would have favored deletion, but it isn't. You got reports that a major video game company and the head of a major video game franchise Mortal Kombat has already seen this in the works. In my judgment, this looks to pass WP:CRYSTAL. –MuZemike 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owain Park

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

Young composer/musician, has won some awards but they all appear to be youth-level competitions. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there are some awards and some news coverage of this individual (eg [this]), the criteria for inclusion at WP:MUSICBIO are quite demanding and do not appear to be met. I42 (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promising career ahead, but we'll need more than some success in youth competitions to get anywhere near the notability criteria. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CPerked (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here to indicate that the subject is suitable for an encylopedia article.--Michig (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. this is a classic cas eof something that comes back immediately someone can find some suitable sources but at the moment we don't seem to have enough sources to pass GNG and even V on some of the claims Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrios Tzerpos

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

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

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability of this Greek theologian. This article was recently deleted via an expired prod and recreated at another editors request. I do not believe that the subject passes WP:PROF because per this site he is an assistant professor, WP:PROF requires the appointment of Distinguished Professor. I understand that there may be sources in Greek that could confer notability, if these are added to the article I will happily withdraw my nomination. J04n(talk page) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~At this point, it is a BLP without any references. Delete unless some are added, and I'll be glad to revisit my position at that time.~~ LadyofShalott 20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References have now been added. JASpencer (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my delete, but am not yet convinced of notability. Not all assistant professors are notable. I am uncertain at this point if his publications are enough. LadyofShalott 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. http://www.ecclesia.gr/English/holysynod/committees/worship/worship.htm confirms his position as Protopresbyter; I'm not sure how notable this rank is. His faculty page lists a number of books and publications. I think that Google Scholar might be a bit weak where Greek theological papers are concerned. But without understanding Greek I'm having trouble reaching a firm position on this one. Pburka (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Holding a chair in a major university ought to be enough to confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the "Find Sources" link on his name in Greek and used Google translate. This produced 77 Ghits, some describing him as "associate professor". He appears to have become a lecturer in 2002 and been promoted in 2007. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron: Yes, WP:PROF #5 is clear that named chairs do demonstrate notability, I don't think anybody is questioning that. The issue is, nobody has stated that he does, no source presented in any language has stated that he does. "Associate professor" is a fair stretch from "The So-and-So Chair in SomeTopic" --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's understandable that Greek can be hard to understand on the English Wikipedia, but he would pass if he were an Anglican or a Catholic scholar due to the fact that there would be some references in English. JASpencer (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got nothing against sources in Greek, if you got 'em. My main hobby here at Wikipedia is sourcing articles, and many unsourced BLPs end up relying on non-English sources. There's no question that it's *harder* for me to find those sources, but they're equally valid from a policy point of view to English ones. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron. CPerked (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there has been no evidence that he holds a chair at any university. The sources that have been added to the article merely show that he exists but offer no coverage and prove no notability. J04n(talk page) 10:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Peterkingiron's comment mystifies me. All we've seen is that he is either an assistant or associate professor, not that he holds any sort of chair. LadyofShalott 17:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this as well, there is no WP:V evidence that this assistant professor holds or has ever held a named faculty chair. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Faculty list already supplied on project page----Clive Sweeting

I don't know what you mean by this. What "faculty list"? LadyofShalott 17:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article in its present state does not present any evidence that he passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete At least the article is, as written, verifiable now, but (as per David Eppstein), doesn't meet WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. It appears from what I can see that Peterkingiron and CPerked's rationales arguing for notability are based on an objectively false assumption. The gentleman's verifiable faculty page at the university lists him as an associate professor, the chance that he has a named chair without it being listed there is enormously small. Ref 1 is primary, ref 2 and 3 are passing incidental coverage, his clerical position (Protopresbyter) does come near conferring "inherent notability." I can't find a policy basis, based on what's in the article or the sources, to argue for anything but delete. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Harpy#Harpies in popular culture. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harpies in popular culture

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

No sources, nothing but a list of "This work has a harpy in it". Same faults as most other "in popular culture" lists. Just trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Divine Comedy, The Last Unicorn and maybe Jason and the Argonauts to Harpies and get rid of the trivial rest. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to keep this article purely for the sake of merger. This is yet another case of Mintrick sweeping undesired content under the rug into a separate "popular culture" article, and people opining to merge it back in once it comes to AFD — a loop that you'll find described at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. There have been quite a few of Mintrick's "in popular culture" articles come to AFD over the years. As with the rest, this content was in the original Harpy article in the first place and was removed from it by Mintrick in 2008 to place it here. Ironically, as can be seen, the sweeping under the rug tactic hasn't worked, as it never does, and the main article has, since 2008, even started growing an "in popular culture" section of its own. Uncle G (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The main article still needs to have some sort of content in this form. As a reader, I look forward to seeing sections like these when I happen to be looking at fictional species. They are more or less the same as an "appearances" section of a character, but instead of one series, its many different ones. I think stuff like this can be sourced and written as prose instead of list format. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harpy#Harpies in popular culture. Per WP:V, unsourced contested content should not be merged, but the redirect allows people to merge the few relevant entries from the history if they also provide sources. Sandstein 00:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Broken Broadcast

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

Band that doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC. Albums are self-released; sources are blogs and some minor concert listings. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting band but lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and no indication of any criterion of WP:MUSIC being met.--Michig (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. Airtime on BBC Tees is a good start, but a long way to go before this band meets notability criteria. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND. --Kudpung (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zim (software)

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

Non-notable software. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. SnottyWong ^speak 19:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable references. Sumsum2010·T·C 19:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even out of beta. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zim exists for three years now and is improving, as you can see on Freshmeat.net (last update in November). I added a more "reliable" description page in the external links. Greetings! --Kdkeller (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the fact that it's been around for 3 years and is still on version "0.49" is a point against it rather than for it. On rare occasions some highly-anticipated beta software can be notable, but I see nothing to indicate that's the case here. 3 years without any reliable sources also speaks poorly for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I want to give a quick friendly comment to this. I would understand if you said the article is too short, but the resources for a small piece of software are enough in my opinion. Isn't the software relevant when Zim is in the repositories of Ubuntu? I don't speak English at a native level and it took me time to translate the German article. If this article is deleted I will be very disappointed and my work will concentrate on wikis with a more "inclusion" point of view. Greetings! --Kdkeller (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I found this source, written by an author who writes extensive software reviews, but basically self-published at Associated Content. (Posting the link triggered the Wikipedia spam filter.) This podcast episode includes substantial coverage but is also self-published. I wish there were a better source. I feel like it's close. --Pnm (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of recurring characters in the Front Mission series. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Front Mission 2 characters

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

List of non-notable characters. Many of the characters are already covered at List of recurring characters in the Front Mission series. The remainder have zero coverage in reliable sources and therefore fail WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^chatter 19:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you only nominated one of the lists. Redirect every single list of Front Mission characters to List of recurring characters in the Front Mission series. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I came across this one on a new page patrol, but didn't realize how many of them there were until I dug a little deeper. Perhaps if this AfD closes as delete or redirect, the rest of them can be nominated together with a link to this AfD. SnottyWong ^converse 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why stuff like this is taken to AfD. Either discuss it with active editors of the subject, or boldly redirect it yourself. Sure, it can help gather more editors to discuss it, but subjects like this don't need to be deleted, but redirected. The only things that need to be deleted are things that can't be redirected anywhere, or is a redirect being disputed.(idk, disregard my rant. I just felt like I had to get it off my chest.) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article seems to have put a decent amount of effort into the creation of these articles. Simply redirecting them would almost certainly result in the original author reverting the redirect, and then the article would end up here anyway. SnottyWong ^express 16:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would combining all of the data and references in the single game articles to form a separate series list of characters, for single game-only appearances, be sufficient? I was originally planning to do a second series list of characters in addition to the one I had made for recurring characters. Or would it be more beneficial to have a more complete listing of characters, recurring and single game? I had a look at similar video game-related pages and found either the articles listed recurring characters, standalone characters, or both. User talk:LegaiaRules 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect content with List of recurring characters in the Front Mission series. --Takamaxa (Talk) 02:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of recurring characters in the Front Mission series --Teancum (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Blake. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole The Entertainer's Introduction to Veterinary Science

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

TV show with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no external references to cite notability. I hate to use Google as the sole basis of looking at references - but from that review it appears only a handful of blogs talk about this show. -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle factors

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

Unreferenced, orphan, and potential listcruft (almost anything could be considered a "lifestyle factor" for something or other). tlesher (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like part dictionary definition, part original research/essay. There's nothing here that isn't covered better in other articles. --MelanieN (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Technical Committee on RFID

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

Short article without established notability. Includes also potential copyvio issue. In 2009, this article was nominated for speedy deletion, but the request was declined. Beagel (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deliberations of standards committees rarely get independent coverage; not notable for an article, could mention in the RFID article perfectly adequately. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this article doesn't show much on notability and a search for it didn't help. We can still keep a small note on the committee in the parent article Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. -- SchreyP (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MLS All-Star 1998

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

This along with the rest of the MLS All-star games shd be deleted. The main article itself is more than sufficient - no coverage of individual games to warrant an article. Sandman888 (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - compare this with MLS All-Star 2010, the potential for a fantastic article is there. This page needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a beginning article, does not need to be deleted. Sumsum2010·T·C 19:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All-Star game of a professional league is inherently notable IMO. Should be an easy time of finding sources at ESPN, SI, etc... Tarc (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware that this is a friendly game played in the pre-season? Sandman888 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is a preseason all-star game any less important than baseball and hockey's mid-season game, or the NFL's week-before-the-Superbowl, formerly post-season, game? Tarc (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see why a pre-season all-star game should be more important than any semi-final game in the Champions League (which are not considered notable for own article). It certainly receives less coverage, both at the time and later. Also this is possible the only club-friendly games to have their own article. Seems quite US-centric imo. Sandman888 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The (English!) FA Community Shield is a "friendly game played in the pre-season" - and yet I don't see you trying to delete those...Giant Snowman 16:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you joking? The community shield is an official competition arranged by the FA and is analogous to the supercups played out in the other leagues in Europe. Sandman888 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        ...you've just described the MLS All-Star game as well...Giant Snowman 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You might as well delete the 70 odd Major League Baseball All Star Game articles while you're at it. Afro (Talk) 22:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems inherently notable. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman, the US version of the Community Shield is notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Topic is notable. Might be another "I don't like it" nomination.—RJH (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RJHall. CPerked (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The MLS all-star game is a high-profile friendly (exhibition match) season-opener like the many in Category:National association football supercups and subcats. This particular article could do with serious improvement, but there's plenty enough media coverage to work from. WP:SNOW anyone? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Whelan (media executive)

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

Resume of a non-notable businessperson. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^prattle 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a promotional article for Mr. Whelan. Sumsum2010·T·C 19:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant promo article written by his company's PR person (who has also been notified of COI and has chosen to ignore that warning). He isn't notable for anything really and running a notable business doesn't make you notable.--Terrillja _talk 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CPerked (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Promo article. All references link to his own website. Soewinhan (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similar Advertisements

The above article is about chief executive of Summit Business Media. Please consider the following articles about not notable magazines from Summit Business Media which all are created by the same user, User talk:Kleinjj. I seriously doubt (and pretty sure) this account is used only for promo.

Research (magazine)
Investment Advisor (magazine)
Credit Union Times
InsideCounsel
Futures (magazine)
Treasury & Risk
Summit Business Media itself, which has only a few staffs and not notable for any criteria.

Soewinhan (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. vidence has now been found to prove notability and has been added to the article to meet WP:NFOOTBALL (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 20:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kignelman Athanase

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

Contested prod, I was going through the list of articles creations from Megazawa07 (talk · contribs) and accidentally prodded twice. Google returns around 400 results searching his name in English, can't verify that he meets the criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. nn123645 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- nn123645 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- nn123645 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- nn123645 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. nn123645 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this player meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - evidence has now been found to prove notability. Giant Snowman 16:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's played in the fully-pro Thai Premier League for Pattaya, and I've added one source which verifies this. I'm struggling to find much coverage of his time in Ivory Coast, but it appears he played for Africa Sports National's first team before moving to Thailand. Jogurney (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell that source only shows he is on the team. Do you have a source that shows he has played in a game? Searching his name in Thai might produce more results but I'm having difficulty finding sources. --nn123645 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reports that he collected 9 yellow cards - that's not possible unless he played at least a few matches. In any case, here is a google translated page which shows he played in a match. Jogurney (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per source added by Jogurney. The source states that he has played in the Thai Premier, which means he meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and is now verifiable. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, losing candidate for state legislature, no other notability asserted. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Paul Reyes

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

Notability is not asserted, no RS, appears to be written by someone closely associated with the subject. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 17:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flippin Sweet Gear

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

Promotional article for a non-notable web site. All references and external links are primary. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^spout 17:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. The high point apparently was having a shirt they made worn by someone on Mythbusters. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a promotional article that violates the neutral point of view. Personally, I'm a big fan of Mythbusters and Kari Byron in particular, but this article is way too spammy. Its only "reference" is a press release! Cullen328 (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Thatcher

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

Unreferenced article created by a sockpuppet of an indef blocked account. The subject does not meet WP:ENT as they had no significant roles in multiple notable films. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB gives 3 credits, all unnamed roles (i.e. "dancer") in short films. It must have been fun to be in Hollywood at such an exciting time, but she's not notable, and the fact thet it's created by a sock means we can't give it the benefit of the doubt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources (the major problem with the sockpuppetteer who created the article, I learn) and I cannot find any sources myself to confirm any of the biographical information (spouse, children, date of death, and so forth) that the article gives. Even the list of films is unverifiable, containing more than is to be found at IMDB; and no film guide that I have or can find lists this person. Even the web loggers who've written "There's not much known about her." don't list all of the films that are given here, or support the biographical part of the article. This is, plainly and simply, unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability can't be shown by reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Pinkadelica ^♣ 03:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christodoulos Sabbatos

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

Contested PROD. Verifiability issues, as well as notability. Can't find reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Editor contesting the PROD claims that a full professorship is sufficient notability, as well as this subjects ecumenical prominence, but I can't verify either claim via WP:V, and WP:PROF seems to suggest that "full professor" isn't quite enough by itself, even if that was sourced (but sourced short of WP:GNG.) Possible language issues in finding sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless reliable sources can be found that establish notability. I was unable to find anything in English but perhaps there is something in Greek. As the article now stands it is an unverifiable BLP. As the nominator points out, full professor does not satisfy WP:PROF, distinguished professor does. J04n(talk page) 20:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he is a bishop in a mainstream church (and that remains to be sourced) he would be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. The current orthodox bishop of Messenia according to this list is Chryssostomos. He seems unlikely to be the same as the subject of this article. So if Christodoulos Sabbatos was ordained as a bishop at all, it may be for a minor church that is not sufficient for automatic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: is there a consensus somewhere that bishops of mainstream churches are notable? WP:Notability (people) doesn't mention clergymen at all and WP:CLERGY is no help. J04n(talk page) 23:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion sometime before but it doesn't seem to help this BLP. Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Unable to establish WP:V for him after a reasonable search. Jclemens (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the text is a verbatim copy of text at http://www.ireference.ca/search/Christodoulos%20Sabbatos/ the subject is worth keeping. Clearly, more work is required on this article, including renaming to Chrysostomos Savvatos since Christodoulos is not the correct first name. In fact, Chrysostomos Savvatos already appears in a list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Greece. If he is notable enough to list there then he is notable enough to write an article about.Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 08:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that ireference.ca site is a copy of here, not the other way around. Also, it is quite common to listify (if that is a word) people who ARE NOT notable enough for stand-alone articles, even to the point of that being the outcome of some AfDs, so that isn't a reason for keeping either.The-Pope (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is standard practice for a person appointed bishop in the Greek Orthodox church to receive a new name almost always however conserving the initial letter of their Christian name, hence Professor Christodoulos Sabbatos is to be identified with Bishop Chrysostomos Sabbatos of Messenia and of sufficient notability to merit inclusion. Incidentally current bishops of the Orthodox Church of Greece (of whom Bishop Sabbatos is one of the more prominent)are barely represented in this encyclopaedia,an aspect which might deserve discussion here or elsewhere.----Clive Sweeting. PS the text is not a verbatim copy of www.ireference... above, but presumably the inverse applies. The text derives mainly from the theology section of the Athens National and Kapodistrian University website.
Comment Interesting about the name thing, I appreciate the explanation. Can you show me *anything* that verifies that Chrysostomos Sabbatos, including the last name, is the Bishop of Messenia? --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Being a bishop in a National Church is clearly notable - all Anglican diocesan bishops seem to be notable. As Greece is the largest Orthodox country and Athens is its capita, it is likely that the theology department of its university is a leader on Eastern Orthodox theology. I assume that "professor" is used in the European sense of a head of department, not the American one of lecturer. I have added 2 links and two categories to the article and linked this article to the entry on the bishop in Church of Greece. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Links and cats are good, but what you (or anyone else calling for keep) needs to do is to add references, preferably at least one that satisfies the general notability guideline -ie significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. It doesn't have to be online, it doesn't have to be in English, just significant coverage, independent and a reliable source. Supply that and get rid of the BLP unsourced at the top of the page and most of us will never view the page again.The-Pope (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

**:Comment Why do you believe Sabbatos is a bishop? Do you have anything that corroborates that? --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC) (Struck, see below)[reply]

Keep Bishop in Greek Orthodox church. I've found a corrobrating reference. JASpencer (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*:Comment Your cite to the letter, I'm pretty sure, is in error. The letter appears to refer to [[4]] Christodoulos Paraskevaidis, who certainly is notable, not this guy. I've removed it as such. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*:Comment This reference also appears to be in error: [5], there is no clear reference in it to Christadoulos Sabbatos at all.--j⚛e decker ^talk 17:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments struck, the cited refs do make sense if we can link the Bishop Chrysostomos to Christadoulous Sabbos. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but potentially rename as nom an article for Bishop ~~Chrysostomos of Messina~~ Chryssostomos of Messenia. If it can not be verified through sources that that Bishop's last name is Sabbatos/Savvatos, and/or that Christodoulous was/is his first name, then those references should be removed and the article would have to be renamed in order to do that. I remain concerned that we're conflating two or three individuals here (as I did myself after seeing a reference discuss the entirely separate Archbishop Christodoulos Paraskevaidis), but I'm not stuck on the notability question. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, as nominator to reflect the first name as Chryssostomos (not sure about the double s) rather than Christodoulos as per WP:V. I've struck through the above in view of the additions I made to the article below, his web site at U. Athens, etc. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can find sources actually confirming that Christodoulos Sabbatos and Metropolitan Chryssostomos of Messenia are one and the same. Currently we have only a source confirming that Chryssostomos is Metropolitan bishop of Messenia (note that Messenia ≠ Messina). The second source on the article is about someone else, a bishop Christodoulos. There is nothing in either source identifying these people as being the same as the Athens theology professor. So currently, the article fails WP:V regardless of how notable we believe a bishop to be. If the article is correct, I would expect reliable sources to exist (probably in Greek rather than English) and once they turn up I'll be happy to change my !vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now found the Bishops web page, and it's pretty clear that Metropolitan of Messenia Chryssostomos (not sure if that's 2ss or 3) Sabbatos is the name presented there. The only loose end that I can see, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, is the issue of the first name, Christodoulos. I've added the bishop's UOA web page, as well as the Greek spelling and a link to his article in the Greek Wikipedia to the article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that the sourcing actually shows that the professor and the bishop are one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Capră

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

Insufficient assertion of notability. (Inventor with no patents and no production devices.) RJFJR (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an inventor with no patented or commercially produced inventions is about as non-notable as it's possible to get. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- It is possible that "designer" might be better than "inventor". It is unfortuantely not clear from the article when he was most active. If this was before 1989, the lack of patents is hardly surprising, since Communist governments did not (I think) believe in them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we call him an "inventor" or a "designer" is completely irrelevant. Lack of patents is not central to the issue anyway: none of the things he invented (or designed) has gone into production, and there is no evidence that he has received substantial coverage in reliable sources, whether or not he has patents. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Approaching a "keep" consensus. Sandstein 00:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.

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

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. No evidence provided that this game has lasting significance, and there is no inherit notability in setting a scoring record in premier league (from 1992 onwards, disregarding the previous 100 years). Half a year after last AfD, it's time for a more structured discussion, where only votes with rationales are valid, and not the many fan-based votes witnessed earlier. Sandman888 (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep - while I'd love to see this disappear into oblivion, there's not a shred of doubt that this is the current scoring record in a league that's nearly 20 years old, it does have widespread coverage (sadly) and as such is verifiably notable enough to keep. Per nominator's rationale, I feel I should disclose that I am a fan, but suffered mercilessly for this one, and still do..... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this game is more than just an example of lots of goals being scored; as The Rambling Man says, this is a record-setting game which has had great coverage and cultural longevity. Giant Snowman 15:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. As record setting match, it has generated sufficient coverage to merit a standalone article, in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep league record setting match. ~~User should cease making WP:POINT nominations.~~ Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in history of both clubs and the league itself. Any one of the three would be sufficient. --Dweller (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This match is regularly referred to in the media, and is significant in the histories of Manchester United, Ipswich Town and the Premier League itself. – Pee Jay 20:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry to buck the trend, but this is just one match in one of many many leagues around the world. Every league and every cup competition has a record scoring match, this is simply one of them. Before this one there was another 'record setting match' of 5-0 - where is the article for that, before that one there was another record setting match, 3-0 - where is the article for that one. All the mentions of it at the time and since are to my mind 'routine sports coverage of a general nature'. If the rationale to keep is because it is a record setting match it should be covered in Premier League statistics and records or some such named article, and club history/statistic articles.--ClubOranje^T 21:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, but even then, this match has had substantial coverage in any number of media sources, perhaps more even than about 90% of any Premier League games you would care to mention. Teams rarely score nine goals in a game, and individuals rarely score five goals in a game. This is proven by the fact that the former has happened only twice in the history of the Premier League, and the latter only four times; that's in 20 years of Premier League football. Furthermore, I would also say that, given the massive media coverage it would get, any Premier League game that finishes 10–0 would probably also be notable and worthy of an article. – PeeJay 16:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if such a scenario plays out (10-0 result in a future match) would you then be in favor of deleting this no-longer-notable match? The point is, the facts contained in this article belong in a larger article/list of Premier League records, and not in a standalone article. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - See my comments, below. --Dweller (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Skotywa, did you not notice my use of the word "also"? What makes you think that the possibility of a 10–0 match would make this 9–0 match no-longer-notable? Sure, this match became notable because it broke two of the Premier League's scoring records, but its notability has been maintained due to the media coverage that has followed it ever since. If a 10–0 match happens, both it and this match will be worthy of articles. – Pee Jay 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ClubOranje and my follow up comments. --SkotyWA^T_C 03:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can any of the keep votes provide proof of the "cultural longevity" and that the "great coverage" goes beyond mere routine reporting? Sandman888 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with ClubOranje's comments. It's a record that belongs on lists elsewhere on Wikipedia until it is broken. Coverage is little more than what it usually given to a run-of-the-mill Premier League game. --Jimbo^[online] 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - record breaking game, still talked about today (featured very recently in Sky TV's 20th anniversary highlights). Any future view of what happens when we get 10-0 or the game's cultural longevity can only be guess-work at this stage.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - record-breaking win that is significant in the histories of both clubs. It is still featured on the media today, and if a 10–0 win happens, then we should probably delete this. But for now, it's a keep. Velociraptor888 10:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if Blackpool defeated Arsenal 18-0 this season, this match would still be historic in the club histories of Manchester United and Ipswich Town and it would therefore remain notable and worthy of an article. --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean? It is extremley unlikely that Blackpool will defeat 18–0 this season. Are you meaning that if a 10–0 win occurs, this article shall be kept? Again, keep this until an [unlikely] 10–0 win happens. Velociraptor888 13:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I think what Dweller means is that even if a higher record score between other clubs was achieved, this match would still be notable in the histories of both Manchester United and Ipswich and therefore if a higher record score was made at some point, this would still be notable enough to keep an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a9, album by redlinked artists. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C9H13O3N

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

Does little more that promote H66666666 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (A9) - No assertion of notability, every single one of the contributing artists are redlinked. 2 says you, says two 15:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if this makes it more or less notable, but this album seems to have been a limited edition of 200. http://www.bleak.at/index.php?iwant=arts&release_nr=bleak027 As virtually all the performers are red linked, I can't help wondering if that's all they thought would sell... Peridon (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no evidence of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Shuttle

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

At the moment it appears to do nothing but promote H66666666 (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both as an advert and being completely non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I've never seen CSD A7 embodied in an article more clearly than this. 2 says you, says two 16:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italy v England (1948)

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

As stated in the England vs Chile AFD, it requires more than mere routine coverage and an away victory to merit an article. Sandman888 (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable match, and saying "keep this because Team A beat Team B in B-Land" is not a valid reason. Giant Snowman 15:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a strong feeling that this has plenty more than routine coverage and is a keeper, but as its the Christmas period I'm away from my books so cannot check (the Battle of Highbury also occurred in roughly this era, without checking sources its possible I may be confusing the two). Oldelpaso (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article, as currently written, gives little evidence that this is noteworthy in the football history of either nation, albeit noteworthy in the football history of the two nations against one another, an important difference. --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another football match that one side got excited about because they won. Lots of routine coverage in England ...they were the team that won. No enduring coverage in Italy. Less notable than New Zealand v Italy 2010, which produced a more significant result--ClubOranje^T 21:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable fottball match of more then 60 years ago just after the end of World War II so the match had a strong political significance. User:Lucifero4

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. sources provided don't pass muster Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Chaldakov

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

PROD removed without explanation. Autobiographical article (I assume that the IP edits are also by him). Unencyclopaedic list based article with no prose at all. Promotional intent. The sources listed do not seem to be RS. Wikipedia is not a place to post your CV/resume. DanielRigal (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It seems that the AFD tag was not put on the article correctly (Twinkle error?) and now it has been reverted to have the PRODs on it again. Maybe the AfD is moot. If so, feel free to close it. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been speedily deleted, re-created, proposed for deletion, contested. It's best that it go through the ordinary AFD process, without any more back and forth. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for fixing it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try a search in the Cryllic Bulgarian? I doubt it is notable either, it was started back in the wiki middle ages... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr Blofeld, the history may have somehow got scrambled, but for what it's worth it shows that you created it back then. Was this a momentary aberration (what you posted cannot have taken you long), or was/is there some (apparent) significance to Chaldakov that you may wish to divulge here? -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self promoting, non notable, unreferenced...could have been speedy deleted?Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version I decided to PROD rather than tag for speedy deletion did make some claims to notability. They were not well referenced or particularly convincing but I felt that they were enough to preclude speedy deletion. The current version lacks even that. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no serious claim of notability in the article, and no external evidence of any either. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been repetitively self-promoting himself in the Bulgarian Wikipedia, arrogantly stating that it is a matter of honour and self-respect for Wikipedia to host information about a world-famous photographer like him (just an example). However, no serious third-party sources have been found to justify the claims of notability and to help verifying the content of the article. It was deleted speedily multiple times, and even now he continues to spam admin talks with the contents of the article. I'm not sure if I have the rights to vote here, if yes, I would vote with "Delete". →Spiritia 20:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He pretends to be one of the top 100 world photographers, but this (or any other signs of notability) could not be verified by third-party sources. States (in almost every comment) that it is a honor for Wikipedia to have an article about him, and that we should apologize to him for rejecting one. I believe that speedy deletion is the correct action, but probably don't have the right to vote here. Judging by the bg. experience, be prepared for having to delete it again multiple times, and for some (not very competent) sockpuppetry. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. This all sounds rather unpleasant. Maybe he actually believes that he is more notable than he is. Thanks for warning us. Maybe we should consider either salting the article, if it is deleted, or permanently semi-protecting it if it is not. Perhaps we need a coordinated cross-Wikipedias approach to blocks and vandalism to stop people blocked from one language's Wikipedia just jumping across and causing more trouble on another one? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my observations, it is an extremely rare (practically nonexistent) case when someone is destructive in one language branch (or project) to the degree of being blocked, and constructive in another. Could it be a good idea to introduce global blocks, and in fact, to make them default? -- Григор Гачев (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The IP that created the article in Bulgarian has been blocked twice already on the grounds of self-promoting, spamming talk pages and wasting the time of several users. He has been given guidance and plenty of tips but keeps on reposting this article, which will lead in one way or another to his perm ban. The user wouldn't understand the notability requirements and holds tight to his opinion that Wikipedia is inferior to the talent of Nick Chaldakov and we should be grateful for having him included as an article. I suggest a speedy deletion and if IPs or registered user(s) decide to respam the content again protection and a possible ban if this goes on too long. --SilentShout666 (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and questions. I understand that there may have been terrible goings-on at bg:WP and that legitimate editors of bg:WP may reasonably be irritated to see these repeated here. But let's put aside what's happened in Bulgarian for a few minutes and concentrate on what's happened here at en:WP. We read above that this article was speedily deleted, re-created, proposed for deletion, contested. I see no evidence of the first two. Indeed, I see to my great surprise that the article (or rather, substub) was created back in 2006 by Dr. Blofeld. Has the history somehow got scrambled, or what is going on here? What was the title of the article that was speedily deleted and when did this deletion occur? ¶ Further, what was the rationale for this edit of 29 December by Freshacconci? It (i) restores a Prod template, which I thought was a no-no in most circumstances, and (ii) deletes a pile of freshly added factoids. True, the factoids are not all of obvious importance, and none of them is sourced; but to call this a minor edit and give it the summary (Reverted edits by 94.190.193.73 (talk) to last version by Chaldakov) is not obviously helpful. Why was all this material deleted? -- Hoary (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The large chunk of deleted material was essentially his entire CV/resume. It was that version that I initially proposed for AfD (unfortunately Twinkle failed to tag it and that lead to a load of confusion). Removing it was legitimate. Its presence would only have made deletion much more likely. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 94.190.193.73 is the IP address used by Chaldakov, and involved in the activity mentioned above. Hope this helps somehow to clarify the situation. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Why does a BG wiki controversy have to concern the EN wiki?
- This is not a new article. It was started by Dr. Blofeld in 2006 as a substub, and it was only recently expanded by Chaldakov himself. After another recent expansion and sourcing by Vejvančický, we seem to have a very decent stub.
- As of my review, the article is referenced using sources of good-enough quality (local newspapers and news websites and a photography portal).
- After Vejvančický's expansion, it becomes clear that the person has a very decent claim to notability: he has exhibited his work abroad, he has co-authored a published book, and he's a member of the Royal Photographic Society (though I don't know whether this is an exclusive privilege).
- While I appreciate the input of other Bulgarian users and I have in mind that Chaldakov had some very negative actions during his conversations at the Bulgarian Wikipedia, this is not really a criterion against the inclusion of an article on the English Wikipedia. The IP may be blocked if his actions are deemed against the rules, but we're discussing an article, not a user here. — Toдor Boжinov — 16:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I must admit that I missed the fact that this had once been a stub prior to the subject's attempt to take it over as a vanity article. We could consider reverting it to that version, although that is probably not necessary. It would be ironic if the subject's behaviour was to make himself appear less notable than he is. Part of me would regard that as poetic justice but, putting that aside, I do completely agree the deletion should be decided entirely on his notability or otherwise. The fact that the article may need ongoing protection from hijacking, if it is kept, is unfortunate but should not be a determining factor in the deletion decision.

The only thing I would disagree about is the idea that the EN and BG Wikipedias are separate issues. It is all one project, Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right to disagree on the last point, I did not express my actual opinion correctly and apologize for that. Certainly, this is one project and all of its branches are related. What I meant to say was that the decision to delete on the Bulgarian Wikipedia does not reflect the current state of the article on the English Wikipedia, and the decision here should not be based on the prior one.

I strongly encourage everyone who has voted or intends to vote to base their opinion on the current state of the article, post Vejvančický's work. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for turning the attention to the encyclopedic potential of this article, Todor. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

he's a member of the Royal Photographic Society (though I don't know whether this is an exclusive privilege) — COL [chortling out loud]: it certainly is not. "Add to cart" for 102 quid if you're in Britain and can't claim to be either a student or over 65; the other options cost less. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't help myself, but when I see this photographer's list of "awards", I have mixed feelings. There is nothing notable for the world of art photography or photography in general. The subject attracted an attention of media on several occasions and the sources might be sufficient for us (it depends on interpreting the general notability guideline). The book was written by subject's father, George Chaldakov, he made photos. His works were exhibited in Europe and in the USA, but again, I can't find any really notable galleries or art institutions (I admit, I work only with the help of G-translator and with a poor familiarity of the Bulgarian media/art scene). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 00:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there's almost nothing for photography, let alone anything notable. It seems that all but one of the awards are for website design or similar, and the award for photography is an obscure one for photography websites, handing out awards by the dozen each month. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question, for those who know Bulgaria, on exhibitions. Chaldakov presents a list of exhibitions. Those that are solo are conspicuously so marked. Most or all of these took place in Bulgaria. None of the venues seem obviously significant, but then I know nothing of Bulgaria and I am willing to believe that a solo exhibition in this or that particular provincial gallery may be very noteworthy. Any comment from anyone here on any of these? Any critical commentary in the Bulgarian press (or even in independent and respected Bulgarian blogs) on any of these? -- Hoary (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Chaldakov:

New: P r e s s - P u b l i c a t i o n: nick chaldakov biography

New book 2010: Photography for the book "Човекът - мисли, чувства, приятелство" 2010 Photography for the book "Човекът - мисли, чувства, приятелство"

New: My photography student gallery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaldakov (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

One of the first of these is this, an article in Japanese about Chaldakov that appeared in an undated issue of Hokkoku Shinbun, one of two newspapers published in Kanazawa (on the west coast of Japan), and a newspaper that dates from the 19th century. It says that he's spending six hours a day walking around Kanazawa photographing old buildings but also anything and everything, for eventual publication on the web. He's in Japan as a result of his father's one-year stint in the department of oncology of Kanazawa University. What we see on this web page unfortunately stops in mid-sentence (it was probably cut out by somebody who either couldn't read Japanese or was careless). Well, to me this is good evidence that at one point he spent six hours a day walking around Kanazawa taking photographs. (Recently I spent six hours a day for just two days walking around a different Japanese city taking photos myself; his are probably far better than mine and I wished I'd worn shoes with thicker soles.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Chaldakov: art photography from Kanazawa, Japanes 2004

Nick Chaldakov: Nick Chaldakov photography from Google images

Thank you people for discussion :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Chaldakov: Nick Chaldakov images at stock agency Alamy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Chaldakov: What the rest think for Nick Chaldakov? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of this adds remotely to his notability... a few photos and comments from his own websites are NOT sufficient to confer notability.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Chaldakov: The notability is art in him self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

specify: First award in II Aria (for installation photography – [Nick Chaldakov - First Bulgarian Desk Top Photo Show ] on International Biennal Pleven Bulgaria - only 4 images from 80 images on the show - shown on 30 TV monitors - Phodar Biennial is a large-scale photography project in Bulgaria, which encompasses an international photo competition (judged by an international panel), exhibitions by Bulgarian and international photographers, and a theoretical seminar.

Thank you for discussion :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New: Representation on Nick Chaldakov photographer page 2 page 3 – on biggest Bulgarian photography magazine Photo Eye - Фото Око' 2001 София Брой 3 ( in Bulgarian ) In magazine written: Profotos.com – Nick Chaldakov in on of the top 100 photographer on the World for 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News: [Exhibition Simple Abstract] – “Nik Chaldakov has unique abstract photography stale” – write Dr. Plamen Pachev on his article on biggest Bulgarian Photography Magazine FO (Списани ФО' 2003 Брой 5 София) Exhibition Simple Abstract is shown at: 1. PHOTOFIESTA' 2001 Bulgaria, 2. PHOTOVACCINATION’ 2001 Bulgaria – award, Silvena Art'2009 - Ruse, Bulgaria

Thank you for discussion :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From where the bold text "Nick Chaldakov:" appears above (just below Hoary's post timestamped 02:16, 3 January 2011) down to here consistsof a string of posts mostly by 94.190.193.73, and at least one by Chaldakov, together with a couple of answers to those posts. (We are told above that the IP 94.190.193.73 is used by Chaldakov.) The essential point of these posts is to give us innumerable links, the majority of them to pages at http://www.chaldakov.com. Those that are not to Chaldakov's own web site include pages which offer his pictures for sale, or do not mention him at all, together with a Google images page, etc etc. I can only assume that the purpose in posting these links was to show notability, but in fact all they show is that Chaldakov exists, and sells and promotes his own work. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of the links posted above contain scanned articles that appeared in the Bulgarian media and aren't available online. I still can't find any critical reception of his works or any evidence of significant exhibitions in Bulgaria or abroad. Btw, "Nick Chaldakov in on of the top 100 photographer on the World for 2001" is quite a confusing claim, as photography is not tennis and there's no "ATP Ranking" for photographers, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

profotos.com Staff Evaluation: http://www.profotos.com/prowindows/evaluation.cfm?member=32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite various people's best efforts, it just doesn't add up. -- Hoary (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New info: Nick Chaldakov is photography teacher http://photostudiox.com/bg/courses/3.html Free speaking in Bulgarian photo forum about Nick Chaldakov photography teacher http://photo-forum.net/forum/read.php?f=1&t=710724&i=883894&offset=all and officially site of Nick Chaldakov Photography School —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.190.193.73 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For failing WP:BAND. Can be userfied for improvement on request, Sandstein 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AriSawkaDoria

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

Delete. Non-notable band. Given links are mostly to other home pages, not real sources. Facebook link doesn't even work. Google search shows mostly self-promo, etc. No significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Wknight94 ^talk 13:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted, please allow time to update the page, suggestions are very welcome. Drummer Kevin Sawka is recognized as the pioneer of an entire style of music - Live DnB, and currently plays in one of THE most successful bands in the World (Pendulum). Having a CD produced by Santana's Michael Shrieve (drummer from woodstock etc), this band deserves every bit of it's place as a 'Notable Band'. Allow for time to update, and know with confidence that this article does not meet grounds for deletion.--User:musicwkiki100% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicwiki100% (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usefy per request by User:Musicwiki100%. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and religion in Star Wars

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

This unsourced article is so full of original research I wouldn't know were to start cleaning up. There are some potential sources in the external links section but the reliability of those is questionable and they are limited to christianity anyway. Unless some proper sources can be found to rewrite the article, it may be best to delete this this or redirect it to a relevant Star Wars article. Yoenit (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much of the current article is OR or verifiable (i.e., is it best to delete and start over or is this actually salvageable), but the topic at least is notable. The book Star Wars: The Magic of Myth does establish a lot of the mythical underpinnings of the series. Much commentary has also been made on the influence of Joseph Cambbell's work on Lucas. But Star Wars sources and analogues also exists (though not without its own problems). And given that Force (Star Wars) is really the only overt expression of religion or philosophy within the films, a lot of the commentary on this subject may be best handled in that article. postdlf (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search found many sources on the topic: Star Wars and Philosophy; Empire Triumphant: Race, Religion And Rebellion in the Star Wars Films; Finding God in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: A Spiritual Exploration of the Star Wars Saga; The Gospel according to Star Wars: Faith, Hope, and the Force; Star Wars Jesus - A spiritual commentary on the reality of the Force; The Dharma of Star Wars; Star Wars: The New Myth; The Jedi in the Lotus: Star Wars and the Hindu Tradition; Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters... postdlf (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, seems I deserve a trout for crappy search skills. Oke, sources exist and original research is fixable through ~~normal editing~~ rewriting from scratch. Therefore, there is no valid deletion rationale for this article. Consider nom withdrawn. Yoenit (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NeoGeo Development Team

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

no real notability shown for this company. no independent sources provided and none found with significant coverage. nothing satisfying wp:corp. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page about the same mob by the same editor:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hobbyist club that makes basic games for long-dead platforms. Kudos to them for doing what they find fun, but it's nowhere close to passing WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any usable sources for this one. --Teancum (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find anything of use for this organization. I also note that I likewise couldn't find much for the game they made, Last Hope (video game), but that's only from a quick search. –MuZemike 22:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Cyrus Ahanchian

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

With greatest respect to this to a well-known but arguably non-notable screenwriter, I can't see this article meeting the basic criteria for notability. IMDb ref shows existence; Google discloses no reliable secondary sources. Article tagged for notability since September 2008. As always: please, prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable yet, may never be; I suspect this is an autobio, although of course I may be grievously mistaken. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McLachlan

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

Non-notable sci-fi erotica author fails WP:AUTHOR. JaGa^talk 09:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BK, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, WP:SPA and, of course, an utter lack of notability. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per foregoing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Pakistan

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

A country with the population of Pakistan will have a round 150,000 - 200,000 schools. Delete as untenable list. Kudpung (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The issue of lists of schools has been discussed before. When such lists have become too long before, they've been reorganized into different categories. Wikipedia maintains lists of schools in many countries with higher populations than Pakistan (see List of schools by country) . The Wikipedia community has shown a high tolerance for such lists as long as they abide by Wikipedia:Lists. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for similar reasons. No reason to single out Pakistan's list of schools for deletion. AtticusX (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but if and only if it is a frontpage to a "list of lists", like Lists of schools in Australia or similar articles. Article must read:

This is a list of lists of schools in Pakistan by administrative unit:

List of schools in Balochistan

List of schools in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa

List of schools in Punjab (Pakistan)

List of schools in Sindh

List of schools in Islamabad Capital Territory

List of schools in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Pakistan)

List of schools in Azad Kashmir

List of schools in Gilgit-Baltistan

As Kudpung rightly points out the article as it currently stands is an untenable list. As Wickedjacob rightly points out - need link, Wickedjacob - the issue of lists of schools has been discussed before. On a purely practical note: would this "list of lists" be maintainable? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it would be. Pakistan doesn't rapidly add and remove administrative units. One wouldn't have to go around constantly adding and removing sub-lists. Note, also, that this article is already broken out into sub-lists in some sections. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of systemic bias against things which are not Europe nor North America, notice the parallel deletion nomination of List of Kendriya Vidyalayas (AfD discussion), a list of (a particular type of) schools in India. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Size does not make lists "untenable" when they can easily be broken into sublists. If there are no other deletion rationales forthcoming (I can't imagine any), I recommend this be closed as a snow keep. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. We can make a rationale for keeping only notable schools, that are either cited by primary or secondary sources, and add a 'refimprove' template above. But deleting a list, in my opinion, is a cowardly act. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 17:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it needs clean up and probably further splitting into sub-lists, but as an index to those lists it's perfectly at home among other such lists. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is part of a set of "list of schools in" which was kept at AfD/MfD about three years ago. Indeed it was started after the decision to have such articles had been made. It should be decided as part of that set and not in isolation. --BozMo talk 08:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Love

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

An extensively referenced article (hence the speedy decline) that however suggests no notability. Step hen 05:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantive references establishing notability are provided. The major cited works are mainly reviews or primary sources that only establish verifiability not notability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local establishment with no general notability. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I don't think the GNews hits (click the Archives link) are as insubstantial as Tony does. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable company. Coffee Atoms (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Venugopal

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable person. Coffee Atoms (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:N. There are a lot of articles by him, but none on him.--Sodabottle (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable journalist. Fails WP:BIO. Salih (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-As per nom...--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Rabbabodrool (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO Qworty (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Sami Bolak

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines. Pinar (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What I gather from the article is that:

In his youth Mr Bolak was a member of a nationalist youth movement. His rank within the movement does not appear to have gone beyond that of a local organiser and for two years the "provincial chief" of the nationalist party in Kayseri.
One of his poems was composed into a song.
He now runs a local newspaper.

With regard to the sources cited:

Source #1: I do not have access to the book but from the contents page I can reasonably assume that no more than half a page is dedicated to Mr Bolak, whose name appears alongside hundreds of other individuals associated with the movement.
Source #2: Cites a page from "Türk Edebiyatı" magazine which published a poem by Mr Bolak in 1997.
Source #3: Mr Bolak is mentioned in passing as having come third in a high school competition back in 1962. The publisher of the source is unknown.
Source #4: Mr Bolak's name is mentioned amongst a list of writers for "Millî Yol" magazine (a nationalist publication, circulation unknown).
Source #5: Cites an almost 1,000 page indictment. No particular page reference.
Source #6: Printed source. It is not clear whether the citation refers at all to Mr Bolak's involvement in the establishment of commando camps.
Source #7: Mr Bolak's name is mentioned, not expressly stated but presumably as publisher of "Millet", a local newspaper.
Source #8: Indicates that one of Mr Bolak's poems was composed by Erol Sayan.
Source #9: Printed source. It is not clear what his "works" comprise of. The article itself only mentions one song.
Source #10: Same source as #9.
Source #11: Mr Bolak is mentioned as owner of Erciyes Gazetesi, a local newspaper.

On the whole, neither the sources cited nor the contents of the article establish notability. Pinar (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is less-famous than Alparslan Türkeş etc. But his notability as Old Idealist Youth is proved with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to notability, "fame" and "popularity" are secondary considerations. The sources which have been cited are insufficient to establish the basic criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". His contribution to the Idealist Youth Movement is no different than that of hundreds of other people. That he may be associated with notable people does not make him notable by association. Pinar (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited do not satisfy WP:BIO per the analysis by Pinar. Edison (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to Pınar's and my reasons about the sources. The article does not meet WP:BIO criteria. -- yabancı ^m 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the many excellent reasons enumerated above. Qworty (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly reasons for invalid sources.. --Kibele (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicionless Checkpoints - Random Bag Searches

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

This is not an encyclopedia article, but an opinion piece. The article creator contested a prod. LadyofShalott 04:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't believe we had to take this one to AfD. The article is a pure rant. Encyclopedic discussion of these issues belong in articles like Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and search warrant, not here. Zachlipton (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seconded. Moocha (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yup -- That Guy, From That Show! 06:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is actually pretty confusing; it feels like it was started in the middle of a news story. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It orignially had a lead-section of sorts which made it clear that the remainder constitute examples of what the author was characterizing in the lead. If you look at the edit creating the article, the context (and just how much of an opinion piece it is) should become clear. LadyofShalott 19:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Andy4226uk (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Crowder

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

This player seems to fall short of WP:Athlete because this person does not seem to have played any games in professional football. Andy4226uk (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no regular season NFL appearances. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I might change my position if noteworthy information arises on a college football career. It's not in the article, and I'm too lazy to search for it right now--but if it turns up, I'll take another look.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LifeGuard30

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

Interesting product (and company), but not notable. The few mentions I can find are all press releases, no reliable coverage establishing that the product (or company) meet our notability guidelines. jæs (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article created by SPA. No showing of notability. Racepacket (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to find sourcing, but found only a single story at Google News. Of the sources provided at the article, one is a dead link and several others don't mention the product at all. --MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Andy4226uk (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tui Alailefaleula

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

This player seems to fall short of WP:Athlete because this person does not seem to have played any games in professional football. Andy4226uk (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a significant amount of coverage in google news to me, should be more than enough to surpass WP:GNG even if WP:ATHLETE is not met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not clear if he was on the Giants regular season lineup or not. But he's been the subject of sufficient non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media to pass the general notability bar. I've added a few examples of such coverage to the article. There are plenty more out there as well. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Andy4226uk (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vlade Janakievski

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

This player seems to fall short of WP:Athlete because this person does not seem to have played proffessional football. Andy4226uk (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs sourcing, for sure. His extensive collegiate career would have no doubt generated enough press to more than qualify for WP:GNG even though he may not have met the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE would have revealed multiple sources justifying inclusion. I think the multiple hall of fame inductions and all-time listings are an indication of his status in American football, regardless of his professional status.--TM 06:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input guys. Living in the UK I didn't realise that college football HOF awards were such a notable achievement. I'll certainly be less trigger happy in the future! Andy4226uk (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Janakievski has been the subject of extensive non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. I've added several such sources to the article, and there are plenty of others as well. Cbl62 (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 01:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

African Americans in Davenport, Iowa

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

This page was nominated before in February 2009, and the decision was to delete. That decision was overturned in deletion review, in order to allow the authors to develop the article and show the notability of the topic. The article has not improved and contains OR and SYN. There is very little source material that pertains to the 9,000 blacks who lived in Davenport. Even the article name is an anachronism because during the period in question, they were not called "African Americans." This is a very nice essay, but it is not an encyclopedia article. Racepacket (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has many references, quite a few of which relate directly to the topic of Davenport's African-American community. The article covers history to the present, so usage of "African-American" is appropriate. Nominator's use of past tense indicates that the entire article may not have been read, and that nominator may not realize that this community still exists. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense used because census figure is 10 years old and matters discussed occured as early as the Civil War. None of the sources demonstrate notability of this Davenport community, but rather cover broader communities. Racepacket (talk) 06:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Black vs. African American in Wikipedia has been debated, see Wikipedia:African American. No consensus was reached. If Racepacket wishes to reopen this debate, this is not the forum for it; instead please see Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance and follow those guidelines to reopen the debate. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is for all intents and purposes original research and synthesis. It is altogether unclear that this particular topic is specific enough to support an article. As the nominator mentions, there has been nearly two years to bring the article up to scratch, and it hasn't happened. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While not a spectacular article, it is a notable topic, and contains verifiable references; I leared a lot from it. Of course, like the majority of articles on WP, it could use some work, but it is dramatically improved from the last time it was nominated. The amount of antagonism this article has attracted relative to its shortcomings is puzzling. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my suggestion in the previous AFD that a general article on African Americans in Iowa should be created instead of this original research essay. Secret ^account 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The article could be improved by working in discussion of buildings and other tangible artifacts from the history of African Americans in Davenport, using NRHP nomination documents, including the 1982-1983 study of Davenport's historic resources, e.g. work in mention the 1910 Bethel A.M.E. church (see page 16 in PDF: until the 1920's Davenport's black community was small and scattered...).^[1]^[2]

^ Martha H. Bowers (January 1982). "NRHP Multiple Resource Assessment: Historical and Architectural Resources of Davenport". National Park Service. (pages 1-30 of PDF document)

^ Martha H. Bowers (July 1983). "NRHP Multiple Resource Assessment: Historical and Architectural Resources of Davenport, Iowa (Part II)". National Park Service. Northwest and north-central Davenport, the Fulton Addition, and McClellan Heights (pages 30-69 of PDF document)

In quick review of the 2 part study, i don't see other useful mentions, but there may be more in there and there may be subsequent NRHP listings. Also the bibliographies of those studies include many off-line good history-of-Davenport sources to consult. Also, have you checked with reference librarians in Davenport's public library. I imagine they could be very helpful. Offline sources are fine to use in Wikipedia.

I notice in the first AFD there was claim this is the largest black community in Iowa, now revised in article (with source) to state it is the 3rd largest. I suppose the original assertion might have to do with knowledge (not sourced) that it once was the largest black community, which is possible and worth noting with source if true. That would go towards establishing clearer notability of the topic. Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It is highly likely that the NRHP nomination document for the Bethel A.M.E. church (different document focussing on it alone) will include a good amount of background on the black community in Davenport. Most NRHP nom documents do include extensive background history, with good sources. Request this document to be postal-mailed to you, for free, from the National Register, following instructions at wp:NRHPhelp. --Doncram (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve was the outcome nearly two years ago. It hasn't improved and I don't think it can. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect the Davenport, Iowa article to cover all buildings on the national register irrespective of the race of their users. Why should we divide NRHP listings by race? Why not take all of the historic materials available and write one comprehensive history of the town covering all of its racial and ethic groups? Otherwise, it would be a POV-fork. Racepacket (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability of any particularly identified racial or ethnic group within a defined geographic area in the United States can be established through the US Census: As long as the Census distinguishes a population, it is notable. A clear rule needs to be established about this on WP in order to dispel continued perceptions of bias against racial or ethnic groups, and this AfD shows why. • Freechildtalk 16:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No just because an ethnic group is listed on the census doesn't mean it's notable, it would create thousands of non-notable communities of ethnic groups in small towns, there is no bias against creating communities of this casliber, but the sources indicate that it doesn't explain the community in detail other than a church and the census record. If you could find sources making the community notable go ahead, but we shouldn't include the census (which is also a primary source, while allowed we should look for secondary sources). Secret ^account 16:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think that's a useful rule, because the census relies on self-reporting of race/ethnicity, and just counts how many people in a given place identify with certain categories. It has nothing to do with the census "distinguishing" such a group, and it doesn't give any basis for writing a full article about them, or even a stub; it's just a numerical statistic. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you? Are you actually insisting that we could also have Pacific Islanders in Davenport, Iowa on the sole basis that the census counted some? postdlf (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note The US Census is the most reliable source in the US for determining a population's notability in any given community, and should be used as the premise for establishing the notability of a racial or ethnic group in any given community. With the Census as the primary source, secondary sources should be used to support that data. This means that if the Census finds the African American population in any small town in America is quantifiable, it is inherently notable. Perception doesn't determine notability; reliable sources do. The Census is the primary reliable source for any population data in the US. postdlf, I don't think it's our job to argue the Census' reliability, as the US Government uses it to base many, many decisions on. • Freechildtalk 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing with its reliability; I was disagreeing with you as to its depth or substance. The U.S. Census is the most reliable source in the U.S. for determining a population's existence. A populated place (city, village, CDP, etc.) that has census data is inherently notable, but there certainly isn't a consensus (or anyone other than you claiming it, to my knowledge) that every racial subdivision of such populated places are also inherently notable. I just don't see how you extract "inherent notability" from a mere headcount, such that every countable racial population within every municipality and CDP would merit its own article. So you really think Pacific Islanders in Davenport, Iowa is a notable topic just because the Census counted some? That's not a rhetorical question; please answer it. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

postdlf, my apologies for misunderstanding your point about the Census. I believe that the federal government identifying a population as existent and necessary enough to include on the Census in any given community should serve as the primary source for notability. Secondary sources to support that population's notability within a given geographic area would in turn merit the inclusion of that population/community community combination in WP. So, if the 24 Pacific Islanders in Davenport were notable enough to warrant RS identifying their racial/ethnic background in the community, then by all means the topic of Pacific Islanders in Davenport, Iowa warrants inclusion. • Freechildtalk 19:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article since it passes WP standards. However it probably shouldn't have been written in the first place since WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia consisting of articles which people can read and become more educated. If there was an article on each ethnic group in each town or city in the world (as there could be if people care to write them) then no one would ever read them all in one lifetime. It would be much better to have an article on the history of Davenport and then one on African Americans in Iowa (or even in the Midwest). People could handle that. A hundred articles on African American communities in every Midwestern town would have people reading the same information over and over. Wolfview (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not every cross between ethnic group X location needs an article, but I believe based on what is in the article already that is a significant, notable situation. --Doncram (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article should not be deleted. However it would be a good thing if WP editors put the reader first in choosing what to write articles on. There is so much room for improvement in WP's coverage of African American history and culture. Why waste your time and effort on something so narrow in scope? (Although I have to admit it's better than an article on a Pokemon or G.I. Joe character or an episode of South Park.) :-)Wolfview (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfview, if we were to determine which topics to cover on WP according to statistics it would be a much sadder place. You never know if a US Senator looking for info on African Americans in Davenport, Iowa is going to be one of the 3 people who looked at this article today. It's not how many read it, it is who reads it and what they use the information for. • Freechildtalk 19:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthesis and original research. There is also no automatic notability for "Ethnic/racial group X in location Y" just because they are enumerated in the US Census. Spare us from thousands of such criss-cross articles between locations and subpopulations. It would be more encyclopedic to include information about racial/ethnic groups in Davenport in the article on the city. Edison (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the first AfD nominator, and I still don't see them being a notable group in Davenport CTJF83 chat 19:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading the "keeps", I'm switching to neutral on the article. CTJF83 chat 21:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve The fact that the Davenport’s African-American community is small is unimportant. We have a history in the U.S. of marginalizing various groups of people, especially the African–American community. They have a history and it should be told because in one way or another, their history and the history of any ethnic/national/racial group, is all our history. Further, there is a group that wants to build an African-American Heritage Center in the city, so there is something to their notability. One generally doesn’t build a building for nothing. There were some plans to renovate a building that was on the National Register of Historic Places before it collapsed last year (see the Q-C Times article).

One of the largest national/ethnic groups in the city is the German community. The census bureau still shows that a significant percentage of people in the city can trace their ancestry to Germany. As significant as they are to the history of the city, their story as a separate group largely ends at World War I. Yet, Davenport wouldn’t be Davenport without them, and the same is true for the African-American community, who continue as a separate, distinguishable group today.

By example, Davenport has a large number of properties on the National Register of Historic Places, especially for a city its size. All of them, it seems, are afforded a page on Wikipedia, and I have written many of them. Some of them, in my opinion, are not that significant individually while others are no longer standing. However, when taken together as a group or with similar structures across the country they tell a larger story on both a local and national level, about the architectural forms employed locally and the people who have used the structures over the years.

Some of the arguments above are preposterous. This article, can in fact, be part of the larger collection on African-American history. When dealing with Iowa the numbers will always be small on just about any topic that doesn’t deal with agriculture, but that should not be mistaken for unimportant. Some improvements need to be made to the article. One should look at some of the statements to see if they are true, and/or important. For example: "Bethel AME Church – a major church for African American Protestants in the area. Community Outreach Church of God in Christ – a major church for African American Pentecostals in the area." One can argue, and I would, that the claims made about the churches are unimportant and not helpful.

Unlike a bound encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows for an expansive look at people, places and a multitude of other subjects. I will allow that there needs to be limits. No one will write an article about me or any one of us (although some of you may be more important than I know), nor should they. However, people, in the larger sense, who generally do not get their story told, have an opportunity here. That opportunity should not be diminished. Farragutful (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article is, in effect, a POV fork of Davenport, Iowa. Most of the article sources are discussing race relations beyond just Davenport. There is also a lot of completely unsource content in the article. Other stuff is inuendo and conjecture. For example, "African Americans — the last hired — were the first to feel pain." There is no showing that employment/layoff policies were conducted in a racially discriminatory manner, but there is an undocumented implication that there was an unequal impact on the African American Davenport community. In fact, all of Davenport suffered an economic decline. There is SYN here caused by writting about the deindustrialization of Davenport in this article as opposed to the main Davenport article. Similarly, "Within the school system during the 60s and 70s, the administrators had apparently^[how?] instituted a policy whereby students who came from Mississippi were automatically held back a grade." Is this because the schools in the south were behind Iowa grade levels in academic achievement or because the administrators wanted black students to be physically larger than white students in the same grade? The article implies the latter without sources. Racepacket (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I !voted to delete before and it was one of the decisions I remember regretting later on. The article shows that this is a notable subject deserving of encyclopedic coverage. Them From Space 00:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the Keep arguments are based on "We Deserve An Article" sentiments which do not correspond to Wikipedia notability guidelines. Such arguments should be discounted by the closing administrator in favor of arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This type of implication reflects the systemic bias that keeps WP from effectively covering non-European American topics effectively. • Freechildtalk 04:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of articles on African American topics. You are right that most of them could use improvement and more information. Wolfview (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is also indicative of the systemic bias Edison's comment illustrates, Wolfview. This AfD has nothing to do with the race that is the topic of the article. This AfD doesn't even have to do with the topic of the article, per se. It is about the quality of the article. • Freechildtalk 21:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD should be about the suitability of the topic for an encyclopedia article, not the quality of the article. Wolfview (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The diminishing of African Americans within AfDs targeting AA-related topics on WP is a noticeable patten that repeatedly appears. It needs to be addressed beyond this AfD. • Freechildtalk 18:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't get too bent out of shape. I count 7 Keep votes and 3 Delete votes here, and most of the Keep votes are not subject to the generalized criticism that Edison raises, so they should not be discounted. The article is gonna be kept, I am guessing. --Doncram (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bent at all Doncram, just sharing an observation. I've written almost a dozen of these types of articles citing ethnicity x in city x, and there is a consistent pattern that European populations aren't put up for AfDs; however, articles about African Americans and Mexicans are. And then, in the course of the AfD, discriminatory comments like we read above are shared. It's a startling pattern, but consistent. I believe a larger conversation needs to be had about the implications of these types of AfDs, and that we need to have an intentional policy to address racist commentary used in AfDs, as the appearance of systemic bias is only strengthened by editors who use this rhetoric. • Freechildtalk 21:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are perceiving racist commentary somewhere here, which i do not see at all. You commented twice to Wolfview, who further up stated "There is so much room for improvement in WP's coverage of African American history and culture. Why waste your time and effort on something so narrow in scope?", and just here that most of the articles "could use improvement and more information". Wolfview did !vote Keep. And I agree 100% with those comments: using some judgment on where editorial effort will be most productive is wise. About which Place X African-Americans type topics are more likely to be productive, i'll make some suggestions at Talk:African American Historic Places#Some sources, mainly suggesting to work where there is an available good secondary resource to work from. In fact it woulda been better for someone to focus on Lincoln, Nebraska than on Davenport, Iowa, based on what is available about historic places, anyhow. --Doncram (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Domcram, I think you're misunderstanding my concern. The veiled and overt race-focused commentary in this AfD is apparent in several editors' comments about the validity of the topic and their opinion about contributing editors. With that said, I'm not so concerned about this particular AfD as I am the continuous pattern that AfDs focused on African American-oriented topics draw out racist or otherwise discriminatory commentary, as well as undue attention to the topic in the first place. • Freechildtalk 01:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see what u apparently see. I do identify with editors concerned that "Topic cross City or State"-type articles may be manufactured in a non-encyclopedic way, which i was once concerned about regarding a completely different topic. That's valid concern. Anyhow, i did complete my suggestions over at Talk:African American Historic Places#Some sources. Probably won't comment more here. Thanks. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the approach that small towns require two separate articles one for [white] Davenport and a separate one for African American Davenport. There is no reason why the material from this article, to the extent that it is sourced, could not be incorporated into a single article on Davenport, Iowa. In a community this small, it is difficult to separate the "white" topics from the "black" topics. Indeed, much of the article focuses upon Bix Biederbecke who is a white German-American. Racepacket (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't give the size of the town particular weight in determining the importance of related topics; rather, it weights according to those particular topics' notability. • Freechildtalk 01:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Racepacket. Perhaps editors of the Davenport article could take note and incorporate at least summary material, and then link to this article as a "See also" or as a "main" link assuming everything in this article is not fully covered there. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like that is me, Doncram. I agree with Racepacket, that we don't need an article on White Davenport and Black Davenport, and X race Davenport, one article on race is good for a city of this size, and I also disagree with Freechild this is some sort of racist issue with only Black/Hispanic articles being AfD and not white. CTJF83 chat 05:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm thinking this is exactly the kind of historical content that we should have on Wikipedia. Maybe change the name to "History of African Americans in Davenport, Iowa" or something like that... but the content is valid and notable and a credit to this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. An entry of a few pages in a biographical dictionary can be used to augment other third-party sources, but on its own it is not sufficient to establish notability. WP:MEMORIAL applies here, unless more sources can be found, and it looks like there aren't any. Krakatoa Katie 02:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Frank Schindler, Jr.

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

I'm sure Mr. Schindler was a fine man, but his record does not rise to the level of notability. Most of the sources for the article appear to be from self-published research.Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about this one, there are a lot of sources and many do not look to be SPS. There does appear to be an over reliance on one source.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNote that the original editor has the same family name and refers to an unpublished genealogical research and The Encyclopedia of Biographies". I cannot find any references to this encyclopedia but I suspect it may be a vanity publication. Regardless of the sourcing, Mr. Schindler did not hold any major public offices nor did he found or head any major corporations. The article reads more like a memorial piece rather than an encyclopedic entry about a notable person.Wkharrisjr (talk)

Comment If the "The Encyclopedia of Biographies" exsits can we have its ISBN, or publisher to enable us to verfiy the source please?Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Biography and Genealogy Master Index (BGMI) I do find a single entry for Herbert Frank Schindler, Jr. in Encyclopedia of American Biography. New Series. Volume 39. New York: American Historical Society, 1969. I think that's the source being cited (see OCLC 4366867). It appears to be fairly widely held by a number of academic institutions. This still doesn't necessarily guarantee enough notability by itself. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw this, its why I ask for confirmation, this may not be the source in question, but it look very similar.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The volume number (39) and year (1969) match the citations in the article, which for me is a pretty convincing case that we've indeed found the source. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lukewarm Keep. The article has lots of problems (mis-citation of the primary source used, for one), but given he's in at least one fairly reputable source, he appeared to play "professional baseball," and the family won a national award from McCall's Magazine, as well as the fact his career dipped into some higher levels of business and political activity, I think he's notable enough. I'm betting he'll show up in older (non publicly digitized) newspaper archives. Anyway, the citations need to be bolstered (and cleaned up), but I think that's doable. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity bio. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I think he just about passes the notability threshold. There are problems with tone; I trimmed out some of the more irrelevant or fawning bits. bobrayner (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a nice guy, but nothing in the article and its references satisfies WP:BIO.It reads like a memorial page or vanity biography. Edison (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much laudatory language and minutia. I agree that it reads more like a tribute page than a scholarly encyclopedic article.Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per User:bobrayner.Hillcountries (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing this as passing any kind of notability standard. The main source Encyclopedia of Biography seems rather dubious as there seem to be no references to it on a quick googlesearch. Is it some kind of vanity press kind of effort? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while inclusion in the "Encyclopedia of Biogrpahy" is one good source, it appears that's it for reliable sources, so I can't see how he passes the general notability guideline. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g11, ad for selfpublished book (Lulu.com). NawlinWiki (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sole silence

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

Contested prod. Seems to be a non-notable book. E. Fokker (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. i put up the books websites so you can see it's real

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo (dance crew)

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

Not a notable group. Nothing from outside the competition, did not win the competition. Has not won anything, produced anything, or done anything else to warrant inclusion under the relevant guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2010 (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) 01:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appearing on a reality show is something that can lead to fame or not. In this case it appears it didn't, and they apparently broke up shortly after with no further accomplishments. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue Evolution

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

Not a notable group. Nothing from outside the competition, did not win the competition. Has not won anything, produced anything, or done anything else to warrant inclusion under the relevant guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2010 (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) 01:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably no conversation on this because it is so obvious to everyone. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as copyvio. I'd declined a G1 deletion (as it was not patent nonsense), but copyvio trumps that. Fences&Windows 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yllapa

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

Not at all noteworthy Peruvian legend / god /or something, google search returns little to nothing. As posted on the talkpage - Looks like a cut and copy paste from http://kiwidepia.com/kiwi/bS9pL3QvTWl0b2xvZ8OtYV9kZV9BbcOpcmljYV9kZWxfU3VyXzhhNjI= Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Joseph Marcou

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article tells us that His best photo of Mr. [Bert] Hardy with his dogs is in the Photographs Collection in Britain’s National Portrait Gallery. I couldn't find this by searching for Hardy but I could by searching for Marcou. Here it is. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC) PS: Oh, it was already linked from the article. Well, Bert Hardy was a noteworthy British photographer; hardly surprising if the NPG accepts the gift of a photo of him. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He donated a print to the gallery, but someone else still had to select and approve it for display there. There are only 3 pictures of Mr. Hardy in the NPG. I have also added some details to the article itself. Dacorbandit (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Delete. He's had the odd article published here and there, but that's about it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2010 (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) 01:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has had more than the odd article published here and there, Hoary. David has published more than 1,000 of his articles, 2,000 photos along with 30 books. More details in the bio. Dacorbandit (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Delete The sources don't substantiate most of the content in the article. Lots of people write articles and have photographs in the New York Times. I don't see sufficient independent reliable sources with articles about him. The article was written by an apparent single purpose account which typically makes me concerned about conflict of interest. If kept, the article contains plenty of non-neutral tone requiring significant reduction in size and content. Royal broil 06:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree the article could use some more editing. The New York Times 'Documenting the Decade accepted photos from people worldwide. For a freelance writer/photographer to have even 1 or 2 would be a high honor. Yet he has 8 in the exhibit. I must say I see a bias in people commenting on this article. They have no idea how much hard work and luck is involved in getting stuff published in high profile places. It sounds like the article needs more links to prove the content. Sincerely, Dacorbandit (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wambach

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

Biography of an athlete who holds (or held at the time the article was written) a national record for master-level high jump (80-84 yr old class). This hardly qualifies under WP:ATHLETE as competing at the highest amateur level. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a national level record for his age group is insufficient to meet WP:ATHLETE. Coverage about his achievement does exist. See [6], [7] for a couple of examples. But aside from this one event, there's no coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I rewrote the article to make it more encyclopedic in format, and I added a couple of references. I think he may just qualify as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2010 (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) 01:37, 22 December 2010 (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) 01:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I think the sources are sufficient for him to jump over the WP:BASIC bar. bobrayner (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE since he's purely a lower-level amateur athlete. He competed in the Badger State Games, which is an amateur level here in Wisconsin. Not the highest level even in the United States, a higher level in a state. There are no national-level sources. One source is from his hometown and one from the place where the games are held. Royal broil 02:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements by MelanieN.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. The bar is literally set too low when the notability is based on a competition for 80 year old jumpers. Someone might be a remarkably good jumper for someone very old, but winning a championship among such low absolute ability competitors would not justify an article, since it is not "the highest level of competition." Edison (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems interesting to me what is the height that leading 80 year old can jump. 4.5 feet or so, interesting to contemplate. Suggest only editors who can do that, should be allowed to vote to delete.ur That means propelling your whole body over a bar that high, not so easy, probably not possible for any of us! Article is well-written and -sourced. --Doncram (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can't high jump that well, nor do I snowboard cross or javelin throw. But that doesn't mean I am unable to apply policy and guideline. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southland Mall (Houma, Louisiana)

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

No non-trivial coverage found. Previously deleted via AFD in 2007 for same reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as mall is the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable third-party sources sufficient to cross the notability and verifiability thresholds. I've added several examples of in-depth coverage of the mall ranging from security, economy, its famous Santa Claus, its place in the local economy, and an overhaul of the mall itself. - Dravecky (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a "regional mall" per industry definitions. Edison (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mall appears notable to the region. Dough 48 72 18:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Easily passes WP:MUSICBIO, and nobody wishes to delete this article except the nominator. The AfD has been posted for almost three weeks. Needing to add additional sources is not a reason to delete an article; tag it and fix it. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Nolan

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

This person just does not appear individually notable, low level quality and depth of independent wikipedia reliable reports. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a very clear notability guideline for musicians, namely WP:MUSICBIO, which states that "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" is considered notable. Clive Nolan is a member of three such notable ensembles, namely Pendragon, Shadowland and Arena. Any shortcomings in this article about this notable musician should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. I invite Off2riorob to explain coherently and with regards to specific policy why this particular musician is not notable. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see a depth of independent coverage to write a decent life story, see my nomination statement. I still don't. Subject would benefit from merging back to his present ensemble. Subject is the subject of a report at the BLP noticeboard, see here. I stubbed it back with a mind to building it back up but the content which appears to be cut and copied from a single source was replaced, under the circumstances, and considering the lack of actual independent writing, I support merging back as not independently notable. I hadn't realized that if you were in 3 bands it was like a gold star guarantee to get a poor wikipedia fluffed up bio, and I still don't support that. That articles an auto-bio, written by an involved person and is just a reprinting of his blog, we might as well just have a link to his blog for what added value it is to the world. Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to write a decent life story. Stubs are good. Such stubs are useful for navigation (Yes I have read WP:USEFUL). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline is a guideline describing the kind of person who is likely to get sufficient coverage in reliable independent sources to sustain a biography. It's a guideline. The applicable policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The require that the subject has been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. No such sources are cited in the article. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those three require that the subject has been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the genral notability guideline, plus WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP in action. We cannot tease biographies out of random collections of passing mentions because we end up with articles that violate the foundational principles of Wikipedia. Merging works, though. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge to whichever band article he is most known for. There is some coverage (mainly non-English) out there, and he seems to pass WP:MUSICBIO, but the large amounts of unsourced content taken from a website is concerning. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:30, 16 December 2010 (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) 01:58, 22 December 2010 (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) 01:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think he achieves WP:MUSICBIO. I think there's sufficient BLP-worthy sources out there to provide the core facts about this individual; if there's any detail in the article that can't be properly sourced, feel free to remove it. I do not know which policy mandates a wide range of sources to tell "a decent life story"; if somebody could provide a link to that policy, it would allow me to change my !vote or tweak the article accordingly. It's difficult for me to parse the second half of the nomination statement - if the nominator would like some other point to be addressed, just say what it is. bobrayner (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arena (band), which appears to be the only band he has been in that is actually notable. There doesn't appear to be any sourced content to merge anywhere.--Michig (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per bobrayner's rationale. Enough sourceable material to establish notability, the rest is editing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you please add your cited content then, the AFD is ongoing for two weeks, and nothing has been added at all to support true notability at all, nothing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Brock

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

WP:NOTABILITY - the sources given are all databases, generated by Brock's company (note that the "top company profiles" piece discusses the company as "we"), or do not mention Brock. Googling for "Thomas J. Brock" has the problem of there being various others of that name, but "Thomas J. Brock" Kern (Kern being his company) generates only 15 unique results, many of which are still not him and none of which connote notability. Creating user is an WP:SPA using the company name (User:Kerninc). Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2010 (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) 01:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe he satisfies WP:BASIC. bobrayner (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request to Restore With edits and a revised executive profile, I propose the Page be restored and merged. New page is created as Thomas J Brock. WP:BASIC. mailmanusa (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 27 July 2011 (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 no consensus. Sandstein 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Kerby

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

Autobiography/resume/self-advertisement for an obscure scriptwriter. Orange Mike | Talk 05:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article reads like a resume, lacks references, and needs a total rewrite. However, calling this screenwriter "obscure" is a bit of a stretch, as he has credits on at least three notable Hollywood feature films with major stars, as well as extensive TV work that has been broadcast. Keep if it can be properly referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AS per nom. I originally PRODed this. AllI found was the IMDB. It's unfortunately not enough for the Wikipedia. It's strange that there is not more abut him out there, But that's the way it goes.--Kudpung (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a reference - Eyewitness: a filmmaker's memoir of the Chicano Movement, Jesús Salvador Treviño, Arte Publico Press, 2001, pages 61 and 92. More references are available at Google Books. Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2010 (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) 02:14, 22 December 2010 (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) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what an ugly mess, but as a writer for several big Hollywood films, he ranks as a notable writer. A re-write is not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Mitchell (ice hockey)

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous 2008 AfD was closed as `Keep`, however this minor league hockey player does not meet the notability requirements as is now established at WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. Dolovis (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; looks like he passes WP:BASIC. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] bobrayner (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2010 (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) 01:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources noted by Bobrayner Racepacket (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:NHOCKEY. As for the sources bobraynor provides: 1 is a blog, 2 is non-reliable database, 3 is a blog?, 4 a blog, 5 from his own junior team, 6 is dead, 7 and 8 are the only legit source and just a few paragraphs. Definitely not WP:BASIC. Grsz 11 04:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't meet WP:HOCKEY's notability requirements. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG, WP:NHOCKEY and more to the point, WP:NTEMP, which specifically holds: "For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." The only valid, independent sources here are short "Mitchell has joined the team" pieces which are commonly deemed to be "routine sports coverage." Ravenswing 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on above sources - The listed sources could be found for virtually any amateur junior hockey player, and they fail to demonstrate that the subject has received independent and significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:GNG.

1 - Bleacher Report should never be considered a reliable source

2 – hockeysfuture.com has a profile for virtually every amateur hockey player in world and cannot be used to demonstrate notability

3 - is a blog

4 - is a blog

5 – is an OHL press release and cannot be considered to be an independent source

6 – is just a photograph

7 – is an OHL press release and cannot be considered to be an independent source

8 – is a Maple Leafs press release and cannot be considered to be an independent source

Dolovis (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm forced to agree, this player doesn't appear to meet the current standards of notability, though it should be noted that he did when the first AFD was closed as keep. Standards, apparently, have changed. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed they have, which is why a number of Keep proponents the first time out have flipped to Delete this time out. Ravenswing 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Killradio. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guideline, but a redirect is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jordan

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

Member of an apparently notable band, improperly tagged A7, but he seems to have enough notability to deserve discussion D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable member of a major band signed by Columbia Records. Commands a large following, as evidenced by online search. Keep. 140.228.26.44 (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)— 140.228.26.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable individual with GNEWS and GHits galore. See GnEWS; Google Results. 76.234.60.200 (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — 76.234.60.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Only a little above 200 hits if one uses quotes. And a quick review of the hits don't reveal any of substance. If I have missed some, please add to them to the article. ttonyb (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his band, no notability independent of his band. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2010 (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) 01:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as per the deliciously-named Duffbeerforme. bobrayner (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. keep arguments rely on assertion rather then actual sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Hudson

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

An editor-in-chief of a notable magazine, deserves a discussion, not a speedy delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—An editor in chief of Comic Foundry Magazine, a small magazine that lasted for five issues. The other information seems of borderline significance. I'm on the fence on this one.—RJH (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as user above, borderline but weak keep won atleast in my mind.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2010 (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) 01:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as above: Editor-in-chief of a former magazine, now editor-in-chief of ComicsAlliance which seems moderately notable, plus nominated for some award I've never heard of but might be fairly prominent in the industry. I don't think the continued existence of this article does Wikipedia any harm, but it really needs better sourcing. bobrayner (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Sources cited so far do not satisfy WP:BIO. Someone is not notable per Wikipedia standards just for editing some specialized hobbyist magazine. Edison (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, etc. Qworty (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Miller

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

Mostly fits under non-notable music artist: Even though it is claimed to be under a music label, he has not released an album, only made a few guest appearances (most were one-time collabs, which does not inherit notability for Mac Miller), and receives small amount of coverage

Most of the information in the article seems trivial. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 09:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Mac Miller has been the subject of articles in XXL magazine, the Boston Herald newspaper and the popular website HipHopDX (Criteria 1). He's also one of the most prominent rappers in the current Philadelphia local hip-hop scene (Criteria 7). His music has been played on the popular satellite radio station Shade 45 and he's performed on a show for that same station (Criteria 11). 15:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.237.103 (talk)

In response to the previous comment, Mac Miller is not involved in the Philadelphia local hip-hop scene, but rather the Pittsburgh local hip-hop scene. I would agree that he is not notable enough for inclusion. Releasing some sort of mix-tape or havingsome sort of radio play does not alone qualify someone for inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.191.46 (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying weather or not he should be included or excluded, but I found out about him from some friends talking about it, saw one of his videos and loved it, and being the Wikipedia junkee that I am, came straight to Wikipedia to see what I could find out about him. Of course this in no way means he should be deleted or not, I am just saying, that as an average user of Wikipedia, I would like for the article to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skcin7 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Mac Miller should absolutely not be deleted. I couldn't believe I was even seeing the notice for the possible deletion when I saw it. Mac Miller has done many concerts not only in Pittsburgh, but in many places. He has been the subject of many music discussions, and is rapidly gaining popularity among teens. Just because his albums are not on iTunes or Rhapsody does not mean he does not make significant music. Numerous people have already downloaded his music, many of his Youtube videos have well over 1 million and 2 million views, and there are a lot of people anticipating the unveiling of his next album, "Best Day Ever." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.38.30 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What label is his album going to be released in? Is it a major label or is it an indie label? Either way, this has to be sourced by some information confirming of a release of a album. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2010 (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) 01:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Miller has signed with Rostrum Records. A Pittsburgh record company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.47.185 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are about him

"MUSIC ; For 18-year-old rapper, it's Mac Miller time" by MARTIN CABALLERO in Boston Herald, 21 December 2010.

"Nothin' But A Kid ; 18-Year-Old Pittsburgh Rapper Doesn't Try To Be Grown-Up Or Serious. He's Just Making Music, Buying Shoes And Having Fun." by Michael C Upton in Lancaster New Era/Intelligencer Journal/Sunday News, 19 December 2010

"Rap phenom Mac Miller knows he has room to grow" By MARY WYCZOLKOWSKI in The News-Gazette, 9 December 2010

"Rising hip-hop stars call Pittsburgh home" By Deborah M. Todd in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (MCT), 7 September 2010

"Like Wiz Khalifa, rapper Mac Miller is another talent from Allderdice" By Deborah M. Todd in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (MCT), 12 August 2010

These include decent coverage of him

"HOW THE YEAR ROCKED THE 10 BIGGEST STORIES ON THE LOCAL MUSIC FRONT" by Scott Mervis in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 16 December 2010

"WIZ KHALIFA WORKS HIS MAGIC IN HOMETOWN HERO'S WELCOME" by Scott Mervis in Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 17 December 2010

There is also a very short review in "Singles File; A weekly playlist for the listener with a one-track mind" The Washington Post, 17 August 2010

Coverage goes past local interest and is enough IMO for WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 11:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Korab

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

Subject is a bishop, but appears not to have enough coverage to support a verifiable article, let alone meet either the general or biographical notability requirements. A Google search almost exclusively returns mirror sites, and Google News returns a complete blank. I've also put his name into Factiva, and found absolutely nothing. -- Lear's Fool 10:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 10:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 10:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 10:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if article can be cleaned up and more sources are used. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The number of redlinks and the lack of any episcopal post suggest to me that his whole career is NN, but I do not really know; hecne no vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (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) 01:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a Bishop in a splinter breakaway church does not automatically make him notable by Wikipedia standards. Fails WP:BIO]] due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources as noted by Lear's Fool. Edison (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Seems to be yet another Thuc line bishop with no other claim. Perhaps there should be an article for Thuc line bishops where these can all be redirected like minor Simpsons characters. JASpencer (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources are inadequate Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Sandler

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

Subject is a bishop, but appears not to have enough coverage to support a verifiable article, let alone meet either the general or biographical notability requirements. A Google search almost exclusively returns mirror sites, and Google News returns a complete blank. I've also put his name into Factiva, and found absolutely nothing. -- Lear's Fool 12:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 12:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 12:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be provided and the article cleaned up. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He appears to be a bishop of a schismatic Catholic church of unidentified size. Unless WP:RS and more detail are provided, I do not think the article can stand, but I do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent church There seems to be little that can be said here other than would be found in a directory. Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2010 (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) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where are the sources cited to satisfy WP:BIO? Being a Bishop of a splinter breakaway church does not automatically confer notability by Wikipedia standards. Edison (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Palmarian Catholic Church. No separate notability established. JASpencer (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:BLP, article about a living person with zero sources. Unsourced BLP content should not be merged anywhere. Sandstein 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of King's College. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation Year Programme (University of King's College)

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

Not notable, fails WP:N. The only external source is actually a directory with thexts provided by the Universities (as can be seen when you look at e.g. this). The program gets mentioned a few times in passing (when discussing staff and so on, or cheating students), but no reliable indepth sources about the program could be found in Google News Archive or Google Books. Fram (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree with the proposal that this article be deleted (though as its creator I am arguably lacking in objectivity). I have added some additional source material that will I hope establish the notability of the subject to everyone's satisfaction. Having said that if the the decision goes the other way I hope that at least the content of the article can be preserved by merging it with the the main University of King's College article or with the main Foundation Year Programme article. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Tillander 22:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of King's College. There is nothing outstanding about any particular university's courses that merits a stand-alone encyclopedia entry. Possible exceptions according notability could be if they have spawned Nobel laureates, for example. --Kudpung (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2010 (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, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of King's College. As an aside, there's an issue with one of the cited sources which may impact notability and which I have noted on the talk page. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of King's College. Not WP:N on its own. Better to merge with the relevant primary article to give it more depth and breadth. --Takamaxa (Talk) 02:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antique Kerman rugs and carpets

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

Article used as spam for a antique rug company, spammer been blocked, still promotional and non-notable Delete Secret ^account 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Autarch (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is most certainly notable, as one of the main traditional types of Persian rugs or carpets. To say otherwise is foolishness. The article is pretty poor, as are all our articles in this very weak area, but that is no reason to delete. I have moved it to a better title & added some material. Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a notable subject to me, and not spammy. If the nominator objected to the link at the bottom of the text, simply removing the link might have been more appropriate than trying to delete the article. That link has since been removed by Johnbod. bobrayner (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2010 (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) 01:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is not spam, and appears to be an article on an important area of carpet history. LadyofShalott 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per reasoning given by above three posters. A quick Google search shows plenty of sources that verify that this is not a "company" as the original nominator stated, but an old regional tradition. Esn (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the major production centres in Iran as indicated in Persian carpet. Article on same subject in 3 other Wikis.Racconish ^Tk 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Racconish^Tk 13:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources for this article all refer to "Kirman" rugs, not "Kerman". Is this a valid alternate spelling, or does this article need to be renamed? (Or are the sources about a different type of rug?) SnottyWong ^soliloquize 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Valid alternate spelling. Cf. [16] : "Variously written as Kerrnan, Kirman, Karman."Racconish^Tk 09:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the article does not look overly spammy to me, and I think the sources establish notability. Reyk _YO! 00:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable type of rug. Dream Focus 08:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moot: as Johnbod has Bến Tred ('destroyed it in order to save it') the article under nomination -- as neither title nor contents of the original article now exists. Should we also rename the A.R.S. the Article Nuking and Recreation-from-scratch-under-another-title Squadron? If somebody wanted to create a well-written & well-sourced article on Kerman carpet, I doubt if anybody would have objected, with or without this AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfair ad hominem. Racconish^Tk 09:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? H o w a b o u t all this then? And kindly learn the definition of an ad hominem, before attaching the accusation to a situation that isn't even remotely related. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take any offence at this comment, though sadly some of the original content remains. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article just had some things added, but most of the original content is still there.[17] I don't see how the article's name being changed to remove the word "antique" and the redundant "carpets" changes anything. Dream Focus 11:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. Let's just agree the article has been improved since nomination and proceed with notability examination, if still needed.Racconish ^Tk 12:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could somebody tell me why the majority of the sources in the article are from the 18th century? Whilst the age does not automatically rule the cited sources unreliable, it is not unusual for publications of that age to have a somewhat biased and truncated (due to limited communications) view. This is also problematic, given that such sources have little scope to analyse the "subsequent" (post-1722) period. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer from an editor having added such sources: they evidentiate the old notability of the Kerman carpets and the Carmana wool. Please do not infer from the existence of 18th century sources only sources from then exist. See a contrario Beattie's 1976 reference book, also mentionned in the article on Persian carpet. Racconish^Tk 14:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the majority, & only reference one sentence (on the 18th century). The modern Muquarna source could in fact be used to expand on this bit. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. William Morris' "vase" carpet on display at the V&A dates from the 17th century and therefore precedes mentions from the 18th century.Racconish ^Tk 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article explains the kind of carpet, its provenance, and something of its history. There are sufficient inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 05:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source Sound Player (SSP)

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

I've just declined this as speedyspam. However, it doesn't appear to be notable. As A7 doesn't apply to software, I'm bringing it to AfD Ged UK 19:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why this is being considered for deletion. As I explained on the articles discussion page (to protest the speedy deletion), the article is up to standards. It provides a clear concise history of the program, compares the program to similar programs in a neutral manner, etcetera. In no way does the article advertise or compare itself in such a way that would indicate superiority. If you could point out specific sections that are troubling I will be happy to rewrite them. SZoo (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reading Wikipedia:Notability (software) may be helpful. At the moment, the article doesn't have any secondary sources. --Pnm (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed content from and reformatted the Features and flaws section to remove content that could be taken as an ad-like comparison. SZoo (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (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) 01:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No 3rd party sources/references; no indication of notability. To establish notability, this article would need non-incidental coverage in one or more reliable publications. Also, article was created by single purpose account owned by programmer of the software. Dialectric (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and unclear. Sumsum2010·T·C 19:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-evidently non-notable. No reliable coverage besides primary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 11:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Loufrani

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

Could not find significant coverage for this individual. Most of the news hits are either press releases or mainly about his company, which may or may not be notable. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find significant independent coverage. Good nomination. His father, Franklin Loufrani, or his company, Smiley World, might be notable though, so we may be able to restore a redirect later if either of those do turn out to be notable and are created. Fences&Windows 02:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal (in practice a Delete) There is already a whole section on the company. Rather than deleting, I would move the whole thing to The Smiley Company and then remove the biographical stuff. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Wait, I am not sure if this company is notable enough for itself, or if it's only relevant in the context of the Smiley article. Current sources are not good enough to make a separate article.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:25, 23 December 2010 (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) 01:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 05:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lungelo Lubelwana

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

Promotional spam for an unknown artist. Only ghits seem to be mirrors of this page or his Facebook/LinkedIn pages. No Google News hits. Claims to have opened for Snoop Dogg, Kanye West et. al, are unreferenced and I can find no corroboration. —Chowbok ☠ 23:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. bobrayner (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2010 (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) 01:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with all the reasons given by the nominator, he is a nobody.Passionless (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional spam. There is "LUNGELO'S MUSIC SEDICES EVEN ROWDY CLUB AUDIENCES" by Zenoyise Madikwa in Sowetan, 12 December 2008 but that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Jeremy (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Damon(Internet Celebrity)

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

Obvious autobiography, full of hoaxes including being the distant cousin of Matt Damon. Fails WP:BIO. Tbh®tch^Talk ^© Happy New Year 00:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N, WP:V. Even the "internet celebrity" label is doubtful given the rather pitiful youtube view counts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above (WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V). --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 01:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as above and I think a good case can be made for Speedy Delete as spam. Clearly promotional in nature. Safiel (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Has valid cause to stay, because it shows information on a person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.68.122 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the criteria here. Our criteria is whether WP:BIO is satisfied. Merely showing "information on a person" is an awfully low bar for notability. By that logic "Joe is an awesome guy" would qualify as an article. Zachlipton (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Straight up Wikipedia:Autobiography that is clearly promotional in nature. Not backed by reliable sources. Zachlipton (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Sumsum2010·T·C 05:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable autobiography. BTW, where are the categories for this discussion? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, Autobio. I would have considered it as Speedy Delete for obvious self-serving spam, if not for the AfD. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a medium for self-promotion. In fact I think speedy delete would not be unreasonable.JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above, and Speedy Delete could also be considered. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: there appears to be a copy of the article at Yuki damon. Rjwilmsi 17:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (and the copy at Yuki damon also, which I have now tagged to have the same fate as the article nominated here). bd2412 T 18:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete. If I had caught this as a new article I would probably have put a CSD on it. I don't think it's a hoax but it's clearly an attempt at self-promotion of and by a very unnotable subject.--Kudpung (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate it for CSD because it is obvious that some people believe he is notable, and those people recreate those article many time with many names, as a recent example is Yuki damon. Tbhotch^™ ^© Happy New Year 05:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PsychoNoetics

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

This was deleted once via WP:PROD already. This version is better than the deleted version, but it still looks like it is intended to promote a fringe idea based on religion and pop psychology and dress it up as an actual science. All the sources used are primary. I don't believe this concept meets the bar of being sufficiently notable unto itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two sources, both primary and by the same person. Even with only two sources, the article doesn't make clear what information comes from which source. The article treats the idea as if it is confirmed fact ("PsychoNoetics can also be used for distant healing of a great number of bodily ailments") and reads like a brochure. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WickedJacob. Come back when other scientists have written about this amazing new field. Coverage in textbooks from respected publishers and inclusion in college curricula would also be convincing. Edison (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotion for a trademarked, fringe topic. Zero evidence of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Gomez

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

One article in the Wall Street Journal does not make someone notable, and I could find no other mention of her. I also searched for sources about her place of work, 77th Shoe Repair, and I also could not find sources. Fences&Windows 00:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete an article on a shoe shiner!? Come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bootblack can be notable, especially if he or she is humble and lovable. As for Ms. Gomez, when she gets an animated TV series, then she'll be notable. EEng (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've worked on lots of biographies here at Wikipedia, always people who are rich, famous, well-connected, driving in fancy limousines and attending lavish parties. Gomez is different because she's, well, one of us: hardworking, underpaid (in Wikipedia, nonpaid). And I thought it was cool she got recognized in the Wall Street Journal. But I'll leave it up to the community's judgment about whether to keep her in. I'm hoping she stays, but I'm not voting here, but it's really up to you fine people.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete mostly looks like a copy of the good parts of the W.S.J. article on her. Sumsum2010·T·C 05:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She sounds like a wonderful person. But we can't have an article on every wonderful person who gets a human interest story written about them. When I was 12, I had an article written about me because of a poem I wrote. My sister had a piece on CNN a number of years ago because she was a bone-marrow donor. I bet I could open any random paper and find a similar "feel good" story about a nice guy doing his job and flying under the radar. That's not enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice person, but fails WP:BIO. Lacks multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Not everyone with one heart warming article needs to be permanently included in an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1]

[2]