Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 7

< 6 December	8 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. Courcelles 23:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Front for the Liberation of Arabs

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

Hoax and unwikified merger of three articles, seemingly with pov agenda. Soman (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks more like a synthesis than a hoax to me, but still something we should have. --Carnildo (talk) 23:04, 8 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 merge to Waipoua Forest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waipoua Forest Trust

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) no notability could be established for this organization. There need to be reliable secondary sources that cover this organization, not just incidental mentions in sources, press releases or their own website. I therefore propose deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.tak (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a Google search returns less than 900 results, most of which are directories and social networking pages. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Since nomination I have removed possible copyvio content and rewritten from sources found in the first 100 search results. There are plenty of reliable independent sources that discuss the organization's activities ~~and thus establish notability~~. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Which of the sources you've added do you claim discuss the subject in "significant detail" and are reliable sources, as the GNG requires? Having just gone through them all, I don't see it. Newsletters don't count, seminar reports don't count, the Trust's own website doesn't count, casual mentions don't count, unrelated quotes by the Trust's officials don't count. That the Waipoua Forest is notable no one would dispute; that this Trust is, I do. Ravenswing 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Waipoua Forest. Grutness...wha? 22:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the trust does not appear to be particularly important, although I am sure the people involved would disagree. A relatively low-budget community volunteer organization. But merge seems a bit awkward, since the activities of the trust are different from a discussion of the forest itself. The newspapers and the New Zealand government have paid attention to the trust, and I assume a more thorough search would show further interest in the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Waipoua Forest. The trust is entirely subsidiary to the Waipoua Forest article and deserves its own section there rather than an entire article on its won. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Waipoua Forest. No independent notability & merge-target isn't sufficiently long that a satellite article is needed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support merge+create redirect to paragraph I fully support merging this into the forest-article where it indeed is sufficiently notable for mentioning. NB: I am the nominator and already made a statement above, which might be good to keep in mind -even while this is not a vote- L.tak (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 17:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The Waipoua Forest seems like a logical place to mention this organization which isn't quite notable enough for its own article. SnottyWong ^speak 17:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested. this could simply be done as the obvious solution and the AfD closed. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable charitable organization, getting news coverage on its own. Click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. Plenty of references in the article. Like this one [1]. Dream Focus 19:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Assuming this is the consensus, I will do it on closure. There is valid content, but it doesn't matter much whether it is in a stand-alone article or redirected to a section in the forest article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are enough sources to constitute seperate articles. I think if the main article was written properly and comprehensively it would be too bloated to have this merged material and would need to be split again.I suppose a merge given the current situation would be appropriate but I have a feeling it will be split again in the future if somebody writes the main article (probably me)..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:20, 11 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Gallagher

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

There is no indication in the article or via Google that this author and academic is notable. I could not reliably verify that the person passes WP:PROF, let alone WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gscholar h-index is 10, the book published by Springer has her as one of three editors, and the front matter verifies that she is a senior lecturer in psychology in the School of Nursing at Dublin City University. This one is somewhat borderline, I suppose. Springer doesn't pick just anybody to edit volumes in a field. Ray^Talk 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but at the same time Springer isn't always considered the creme de la creme, and editing (or writing) a book doesn't make for notability by itself. Do we have any kind of standard for h-indices? Thanks for your input, Drmies (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I don't mind being proven wrong here; in fact, I'd appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I'm not sure where this all fits. H-indices are strongly field dependent, and I suspect for psychology 10 is on the low side of notability, but I was just burned in a recent discussion when my attempt at normalizing went awry. That's why I offered up a comment and not a !vote - I'm not sure which way this one goes. Ray^Talk 15:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't go with me, then--I'm not tenured yet, and I doubt that my h-index would impress anyone. Still, the closing administrator will no doubt take your comments into account. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Nothing relevant found in Google news archive. No other evidence of significance apparent in the article. "Psychoprosthetics" and "Enabling Technologies" are both reliably published books, but they're edited volumes rather than monographs so they don't really do anything to demonstrate the impact of her research. Unless something else turns up during the AfD, this looks like a failure of both WP:PROF and WP:GNG to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 9 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! 17:05, 15 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 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend Of Spyro: Spyro's Kingdom

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

Article was previously deleted as Spyro's Kingdom upon author's request, but it was PRODded on verifiability and speculation (crystal ball) issues. Hence, I consider it a weak contest of that deletion and hence sending it here to AFD. I still support deletion as before as this is too early to have an article on this, especially with so little information out there yet. –MuZemike 22:05, 7 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) –MuZemike 22:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh... Do you really need to bring things like this to AfD? Redirect to Spyro (series). _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROD was correct, there's way too little to make this WP:CRYSTAL piece a full-fledged article at the present time. Nate • (chatter) 06:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only "expansive info" I could find were forums. Kill this one off until more info is known. Not enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --Teancum (talk) 15:20, 13 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 23:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike O'Doherty

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

Article about footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league,so fails WP:NSPORT#Association football. Insufficient media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Proposed deletion tag removed without explanation. Struway2 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spot the WP:COATRACK. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominator said it all really.--ClubOranje^T 09:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:54, 13 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 23:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shenita Moore

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

Prod removed with no improvement; prod rationale: fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no evidence of multiple notable roles; recurring role on Greys Anatomy was as 'Surgical Nurse / Another Nurse / ER Nurse' Tassedethe (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Shortness of career and lack of coverage make this article premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per MightyMoore. Shenita Moore has been a professional voice over and on camera actress for over 10 years, all of which have been SPEAKING ROLES, not BACKGROUND WORK. There was a problem with using the word RECURRING (which the role is, fyi), so it was changed to APPEARANCES. She is clearly visible as being an up and coming actress and deserves a small corner of Wikipedia. User: MightyMoore
Delete: What criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER does MightyMoore claim the subject fulfills? None that I can see. Being (allegedly) "up and coming," having speaking roles on screen and being a professional actor forms no part of Wikipedia notability criteria. Certainly if the article touts three roles as her key appearances where the subject, respectively, is (a) credited as "ER Nurse" (b) credited as "Blood Bank Nurse" with a single appearance and (c) credited with a single appearance, she's far, far below the threshold. User:MightyMoore appears to be a SPA; the only previous appearance was disputing with an admin, back in January, the apparent deletion as a PROD of a previous version of this article. Salting might be appropriate. Ravenswing 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA, in fear of being pounced upon by seasoned Wikipedia Editors. Lol. Not worth the time and effort of researching and editing other pages if it will just be deleted anyway. User: MightyMoore

- Comment: The way for articles to not be nominated for deletion in the first place is for them to conform to applicable policies and guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:RS. Along with WP:PILLAR, I strongly recommend you read those guidelines. Ravenswing 17:33, 9 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 23:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Ali Jaberi

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

Despite claims of being "one of the most important figures in contemporary Persian music", the only information that can be found about this musician are various listings on music sharing sites. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed with nom. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, fails WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 18:42, 9 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 23:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Thomas (broadcaster)

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

Being a radio presenter is probably not a guarantee of automatic notability. This BLP is unreferenced and a search for sources (difficult, given the common names--I tried this) delivered nothing at all. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:RS. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:32, 8 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 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Raheem

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

Non-notable person. One reference was added by a friendly editor to help out an otherwise wholly unreferenced (and poorly written) BLP, but User:7 already said in their edit summary that it was admittedly weak. (Nevertheless, thanks, 7, for at least giving it a try.) Non-notable person, unverified BLP: delete. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 8 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 23:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Jabalee

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

According to WP:Athlete, an athlete can be notable if they "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." I don't believe that the National Physique Committee's nationals count as major international amateur competition. Add to that the fact that the NPC itself appears to be barely notable--it is recognized by the International Federation of BodyBuilding & Fitness, but that is only one of a number of international amateur bodybuilding organizations. This unverified BLP provides no evidence of the subject having achieved anything notable, and the NPC website has no searchable archive; they give results only for 2009 and 2010. No hits at all in Google News, and no reliable sources in a regular Google search. Non-notable person, unverified BLP: delete. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to establish that the subject is competing at the highest level of the sport. Realising that Wikipedia is an unreliable sources, National Physique Committee does indicate that it is the sole national body recognised by the International Federation of BodyBuilding & Fitness. So the competitions are legitimate from a sports governing point of view. However, all we have is information that she has competed nationally, with one national title (verified here). I can find no indication of international competition. So based on WP:ATHLETE, she does not meet the inclusion criteria. Appealing to WP:GNG, the only significant coverage was this article published in Flex. It's a decent source, but it's the only one I could find, so I don't see that the general notability guidelines are met either. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. I also have a couple other concerns; first, that the IFBB is not generally recognized as the "highest level" of bodybuilding, and second, that the premise that bodybuilding constitutes a sport under the aegis of WP:ATHLETE is unproven ... unlike some, I don't presume that every competitive competition is a "sport." Therefore, the subject needs to qualify under the GNG, and I see no evidence that she does. Ravenswing 22:33, 8 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 23:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Henshall

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

I do not believe this person is notable. None of the positions he allegedly held (the article is a wholly unverified BLP) confer automatic notability, and a Google News search does not produce anything of importance. This article from the Yorkshire Post is not about the man himself and mentions him only once, and this article, from Times Higher Education, only has a few sentences on him. Neither of these (and that's all I could find) give us much to base an article on, and I don't believe that this is enough coverage for the subject to pass general notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced BLP which fails WP:PROF even taking everything in it at face value EEng (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His administrative position in academia is not at a high enough level to pass WP:PROF, so we are forced to rely instead on WP:GNG, but there doesn't seem to be enough there either. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:RS and WP:BIO. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:57, 9 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! 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCSI Blue Ocean Strategy regional Center

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

Advertisement for a non-notable commercial enterprise selling strategy consulting services Mattnad (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to UCSI University. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 12 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! 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Swift

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

Prod (notability) deleted without improvement to article. Autobiography (initially) of a radio presenter who probably has a daily audience of less than 1000. Searching shows numerous passing references (and that his photos of earthquake damage were published) but nothing significant or neutral in a reliable source. dramatic (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem particularly notable. Possible COI given creators login! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as winning a national award for broadcasters suggests subject is notable. Potential COI is a matter for tagging, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are (probably) national awards for accountants too. Winning one doesn't confer notability unless it results in some decent coverage in a good source - which it doesn't appear to in this case. Note too, that this is a "pay to enter" award. The award is documented at Plains FM, which is sufficient (and note that we don't have articles for the other nine award-winners from this very small radio station*). * Plains FM is one of 31 radio stations in a city of 360,000 people and is one of 15 stations sharing the 6.7% market share for "other". [2] (National radio and concert FM excluded from both ratings survey and my count of stations). dramatic (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As results form the log, prod was contested after deletion and procedurally restored by me.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep sorry, history did not show that the article had been deleted. I diffed the two entries labelled prod and restored. dramatic (talk) 09:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not very notable. No news coverage (Google News Search ) --Edward130603 (talk) 14:47, 10 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) 18:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Tam Huy Pham

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

Bio of a medical researcher. Can't find enough to suggest that he passes WP:PROF in particular or WP:BIO in general. Nancy ^talk 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this resume. I see no evidence that the requirements of WP:PROF or WP:GNG are met. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls just short of A7, but not enough to merit inclusion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non=notable. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:PROF or WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be a speedy or me.--Stone (talk) 08:50, 9 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 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson David Rockefeller

(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 and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable actor/musician. No reliable sources found or be found, some of the sources given don't even refer to him —Theda 18:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: MySpace musician. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 7 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! 17:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elite MCFL

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

Alleged semi-professional football league of questionable notability. Google searches on "Elite MCFL" only shows 9 results, while "Elite Mid Continental Football League" only shows this page. No coverage from independent or verifiable third party sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am a member of the MCFL and we have just merged with the EAFL, discussions are still in progress for the 2011 season, no website has been made, and not all plans finalized. Only that the leagues will merge and teams have been confirmed, with more on the way. This indeed is a real thing and in the world of semi pro football, this is big. It should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 2010-12-07 18:17:56
- Prove it. In fact, prove that anything that you have written, either here or in the article, is true, by showing us where it has been documented, written down, and published. Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually, "I'm in it" is a reason to delete because it violates WP:NPOV. Barring that, there are no independent reliable sources and normally semi-pro leagues are not considered notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "I'm in it" is a reason to delete because it violates WP:NPOV. — Incorrect. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and see what it actually says on the matter. Then read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view to see that it isn't about membership. Uncle G (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarify Yes, you can write articles about yourselves provided you don't violate NPOV. This article does that--a policy that your link states "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." But even if it didn't, the subject still has failed to overcome the lack of independent reliable sources and that notability of the subject matter has not been achieved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did cite my source, the press release on the messageboard, which can be found on the Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and EAFL messageboards to back up the leagues existence. Again it was just formed. Rick lay95 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]
- Message boards are not considered "reliable sources" and since these boards are also managed by the organization, they are not "independent sources" either. You'll notice that there are zero articles found on Google News as an example of the lack of newsworthy coverage of the subject matter. Try another wiki, you might have better luck in a different outlet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Again the league was just formed, more formal information will be given out after Sunday December 12th when the league will provide more information and most likely member teams will start posting this on their websites. I would not delete this, knowing that additional information is forth comming. Trust me this is real. No Google news will not cover it because they don't care. Semi pro is rarely covered by news papers or media outlets, other than semi pro news outlets and messages boards. Frankly 99% of all semi pro football information is from messageboards. Rick lay95 (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]
    - So, the forthcoming information will be provided by the league (not independent) or the teams (not independent) and "(no) Google news will not cover it because they don't care" is basically admitting that there will be no independent reliable sources forthcoming. As such, it now, and will likely in the future fail to meet our notability guidelines. I'd say that makes for a very solid argument in favour of deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, semi pro football news outlets will cover it, perhaps you should look there. Its a fact that semi pro football is self reported. If you want further information then I suggest that you do some digging or wait until more is posted. I know the league president and commissioner and everything they have posted is true. I don't know what you want. Other semi pro pages exist and they are just fine, so why is this one such a bother? The information I give you is 100% reliable and further information will be posted in the near future. Rick lay95 (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)rick_lay95[reply]
        First, Other stuff exists is not a reason to keep. Second, what other semi-pro pages exist? Third, self-reporting of news is not considered independent and by policy must be deleted-Wikipedia is not a free hosting server. Fourth, self-published information is not considered "reliable and independent" which is what we require here. Fifth, WP:CRYSTAL covers clearly that generally "events that have not happened yet" are normally not notable. Sixth, I just found Northern Illinois Cowboys as a semi-pro football team and will be nominating it for deletion promptly.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mid Continental Football League. That league, at least, is notable, and the merger with the EAFL can be covered there until it's notable enough for its own page. Since the EAFL was only around long enough to merge with the MCFL, never even playing any games from what I can tell, covering the MCFL and Elite MCFL as a single entity on a single page makes the most sense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree to that. Even though technical the MCFL and EliteMCFL are two different leagues, if it helps save this i would be fore it.
  - Caution that page has its own problems--no independent sources, for example. It likely will also have to go through the AFD process, and many would argue that does not even approach notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mid Continental Football League for afd discussion on the proposed targeted merge page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 15 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! 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yav (Non-governmental Environmental Organization)

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

I can't see how this organisation meets WP:ORG. It's hard to understand the article because of grammatical problems. But it seems like a small group of families that have bought some land and they're going to build some houses there. The article says that the organisation has 40 members. All but one of the references are in Russian. The only English reference seems to support how small this project is. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to indicate notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion Information
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply] Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 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 23:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection

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

Not a notable set of albums. All sources are primary. Only Gnews hits are trivial or not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable collection. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual albums within the series can stand on their own, but this article about the whole series is just a list and there is no other encyclopedic information available to work with. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This series was everywhere as I was growing up. Just because the series was of poor quality and serious music critics generally avoided talking about it doesn't prevent it from being prolific and notable. --Remurmur (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above vote: Note that the article is about the series itself and requires sources that talk about the series as something apart from the individual albums within. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A huge chunk of them were just deleted via PROD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there may still be a number of individual albums with the same title (with the additional subtitle of the artist's name) as articles, this could be deleted then recreated as a diambiguation page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:52, 14 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comporta village portugal

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

NB: Page has been moved to Comporta PamD (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't look like a genuine village at all - it's a residential/holiday development, and the article is written in a promotional style by a company promoting the place. See [3] and [4] for details of its true nature. The original source from which the article was copied is at [5], which is clearly a property marketing site - check the article history to see the original version, complete with that as its only source. I've done some Googling, and I can't find any coverage of the place outside of residential/property promotion sites, so it looks like a promotional article for a non-notable development. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The author originally created three such articles, for similar developments, and I requested speedy deletion as a copyright infringement on this one (I think - sorry if I have any details incorrect), and as a combination of copyright infringement and advertising on the others. This one has now been undeleted as copyright permission has been properly done by OTRS, but the other two remain deleted as promotional. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but edit. NYT style magazine at http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/full-disclosure-comporta-portugal/ refers to one of the restaurants as a "former rice husking factory", suggesting the place had some existence before becoming a holiday resort for the Beautiful People. Treat as just another village, therefore notable. Will do some editing now. PamD (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved the page to Comporta - several incoming links - and stripped out a lot of the peacockery. PamD (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the place is listed as a redlinked village of Alcácer do Sal Municipality since at least 27 Dec 2009 - linked as Comporta (Alcácer do Sal), I've made a redirect. Appears just as Comporta in List_of_parishes_of_Portugal:_A#Alc.C3.A1cer_do_Sal. PamD (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Withdraw. Nice find - you were more successful than I was. As it now has one decent source and has had the promotional puffery removed, I'd like to withdraw my nomination. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 7 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! 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Giannetti

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

I cannot find references which show that this person clearly meets the notability standard for biographies WP:BIO. This article has been unreferenced for over 4 years. Polargeo (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a Google search and couldn't find any substantial coverage of this person by reliable sources. I found several other non-notable people with the same name. Cullen328 (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--agree with nom and Cullen. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have added some sources to this, and updated it to reflect his current job. Why is the publishing industry so quiet about its own? I am sure there are some more industry publications that might get into more detail, but I can't find them. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate Jim Miller's efforts, but one source has Gianetti speaking about National Geographic, and the other is a routine hiring announcement at Taunton Press. Neither discusses Gianetti as a person in any depth at all, and don't really establish his notability, in my opinion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There is insufficient in-depth coverage in the added references. Polargeo (talk) 15:34, 14 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! 17:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyshannon VTOS

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

Training programme at a local Adult Education Centre with 18 students. Can't see that it passes WP:NOTE. There may be a case for an article on VTOS as a whole but not for this specific course. Nancy ^talk 16:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such individual programs are hardly ever notable, and this one certainly doesn't offer any proof that it should be considered notable. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 7 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 23:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FactoryMaster

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

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion removed by creator without explanation. Invitrovanitas (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a software company that provides Material Requirement Planning (MRP) software solution for SMEs worldwide. An article about such a business is not allowed unless they use the yellow covers on their TPS reports, and we are unfortunately out of yellow covers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a defence of the article on the talk page, but it doesn't get round the fact that the coverage in third-party reliable sources is trivial. Come back when you've got a bit more attention. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont believe this should be removed as FactoryMaster Ltd is a World Wide Known Software house! Such as Sage, Magic, Microsoft and so on. All FactoryMaster wants to do is have a similar Wikipedia page as other software houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.152.253 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — 213.123.152.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You can get a page like other software houses when you can show you've got coverage in third-party sources (and no, unilaterally claiming you're world wide known doesn't count) like all other pages are meant to have. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 9 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) 14:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Sagen

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

Autobiography of a journalist and motorcycle tester. A search for sources reveals no evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline. The article cites a single Norwegian source from 2007 and I can't find any to add. Tagged for notability since Sept 2009: if there were more sources to add, I guess they would've been added by now. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Clear autobiography, not helped by today's spamming activity by Raptorama (talk · contribs) and likely sock Raptorphoto (talk · contribs). --Biker Biker (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the second of these two editors recently added sources to the article, but that -- their quality aside (some were blogs) -- these appeared to be articles by the subject, not about him, and as such don't help to establish notability. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject's journalism writing is basically low-level staff work at motorcycling publications, with no major original contributions, scoops, or otherwise influential writing. The most significant non-journalistic feat seems to be having ridden a motorcycle down a slalom course, but it doesn't seem to have caused much of a ripple in independent sources.
For what it's worth, the full list of external links, mostly not in English, are in this version of the page. --Dbratland (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks references that would prove notability, and profession is not inherently notable. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad vanity article. EEng (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried to add one of the few Norwegians who has done an international career in this field. But obviously failed in my editing process. Any constructive advice on what I should do to avoid Sagen hunting me down for ruining the page about him greatly appreciated. Links added yesterday to source the language information in article and fix notability issue. This article is surely not meant to be a vanity article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptorama (talk • contribs) 00:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, change your address? Move to Sweden! Though I hear the biker gangs there are dangerous. Seriously, your effort to improve the wiki is appreciated; it just so happens that the first one you picked is not the most notable one--don't let it get you down, just try again. It can be difficult to write an objective biography and description, no doubt, and I for one do not think that you set out to write a vanity piece. As for Tor, you can always tell him that as long as he writes decent articles he'll keep his job, with or without a Wikipedia article. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's getting sadder. Sagen/Raptorama are obviously the same person, so unless he's planning to harm himself he should be safe from, er, himself. This is why autobios are so frowned upon: they waste everyone's time. EEng (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I don't have any proof of that, and I'll assume good faith since I personally have no reason to do otherwise. Now, EEng, which article on the pedia is my autobio? Haha, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Raptorama is Tor Sagen's YouTube handle [6]; it's in one of the links I linked to above. Raptors & Rockets is Sagen's personal motorcycle blog/magazine/whatever. --Dbratland (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wish I didn't know that. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Stop by my office. I'll warm up the neuralyzer. EEng (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the unbiased edits then EEng and Dbratland. I came here to write this specific article and with the field specific sources at hand. I could have called myself TorSagen. Can I not edit an article on Beethoven under the user name Beethoven? Now, I shall endeavour to make this more solid. If a branch specific source is not high enough quality for this set of editors, then we are not going to get far with motorcycling in Wikipedia. I have identified several edits I would like to make that will make this a much richer place for those wanting further expertise on motorcycling (on other subjects), but I'm not sure I have time and energy to champion my own credibility on each fact presented. May I suggest that Editors that believe that I am biased consider themselves biased and allow others to edit my future edits? Peace.--Raptorama (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter if you are or are not TorSagen. It's suspicious, both under WP:SPA and WP:DUCK. However, this discussion is about the encyclopedic content of the article. tedder (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm. How is this for a blatant conflict of interest? Drmies (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        How dare you sir. Plus, there's always WP:WAX; this isn't about the noble accomplishments of the tedder. tedder (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sorry, supplying reliable sources on everything is part of the job. And please, don't try to sell us on the idea that you're not Sagen, or someone close to him. You even have a second account, Raptorphoto, which was blocked for sockputtetry. EEng (talk) 15:05, 8 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Binks

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

No obvious independent notabillity. Does not appear to satisfy WP:N or WP:ENT. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many other sports presenters have articles. I know that reeks of OTHERSTUFF, but it does show you precedent where WP:ENT is currently pretty unclear -Drdisque (talk) 20:07, 29 November 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, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Jar Jar Binks~~Weak keep if more authoriative secondary sources can be found. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:35, 30 November 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) 14:15, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StarGazer (band)

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

well written but largely unsourced. the one inline source that is provided is a copy of this wikipedia article (or vice versa) and is not a reliable source, band bios are submited and edited by readers. the extenal links are ther own pages and a non reliable source. There is a lot of relaeses but no evidence they are on important labels. without independent coverage this does not satisfy wp:music. (the bands name made searching for sources less easy but using album or band members didn't help) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. They have a fairly substantial review at Allmusic, one at About.com which is questionable perhaps re. its reliability, and news items from Blabbermouth.net. Not totally convincing regarding notability, but getting there.--Michig (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:18, 24 November 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) 01:32, 30 November 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) 14:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No decent sources available apart from two reviews and so cannot verify the article. No charting records in Australia and Generally not notable. Mattg82 (talk) 18:15, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Den Schliker

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

I don't see the notability of this person (as a sysop of ru.wiki I have deleted the article about him from there). He participated in two exhibitions in rather small Ukrainian city which were reviewed by local press; besieds he claims to have his works included in one big album published in Russia and in one magazine published in USA. I guess there are thousands and thousands of photographers with this volume of contribution. The earlier discussion seems to me rather pointless: it is quite clear that the activity of Mr. Schliker has NOT received significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 November 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) 01:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't see his significance at the time of the first AfD and I can't see it now. -- Hoary (talk) 13:45, 4 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) 14:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The first AFD closed as a "clean keep" (though it was one of my famous NACs) so we need to be certain that consensus really has changed before the delete button is pressed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:13, 7 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. Withdrawn: sources added. Jujutacular ^talk 20:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Bin

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

Unsourced BLP. May be notable, but I was unable to find coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Jujutacular ^talk 14:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Sources added.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't mention Go players in WP:ATHLETE, but if we use that as a guide and take "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" as an inclusion criteron, then the subject passes having won the LG Cup (Go).--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Established precedent from an informed editor - life-long Go and chess player (& WP admin.) User:Charles Matthews - is that 4-dan pro upwards are on a par with chess grandmasters, hence notable in the Go world. Yu Bin is down as a 9-dan Pro - the highest anybody can achieve.

(Disclaimer: I'm an amateur Go player, & work on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Go articles.) Trafford09 (talk) 19:52, 7 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 redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup. Courcelles 03:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIFA World Cup qualification

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

Very premature article. Qualification will not begin for another decade. What little information there is on this subject (That Qatar automatically qualifies), is sufficiently covered in 2022 FIFA World Cup. Jmount (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd have said 'speedy' but I can't think of one that fits. In that absence, per nom... Peridon (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, this could be deleted for several years. So could the 2018 version. Even 2012 is still pretty empty. -Koppapa (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace it with a redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup; this prevents the red link brigade from trying to recreate the article. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with the redirect idea. It's a semi-likely search-term and would do no harm being re-directed, and possibly locked, until the qualificaion gets underway proper. Lugnuts (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup; possible search term, might as well send readers to an article that is vaguely semi-useful (as useful as one can be when considering qualification for a tournament 12 years in the future). And as User:Pretty Green points out, stops people seeing a red-link and deciding to recreate it with the absolutely vital information that Qatar have qualified, but no one else will for another 10 years or so. - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very unlikely as a search term, since one can write "2022 FIFA World Cup" on the way to writing "2022 FIFA World Cup qualification". As for the red links that might get left behind, edit it out of Template:FIFA World Cup in the same manner that it was edited in. Mandsford 22:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - searchable term, but not worthy of a seperate article yet. Giant Snowman 16:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - It seems a resonable search term, but clearly not notable. It will be, but not yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:37, 9 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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabiography

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

I've prod'd this before and that was (fairly) reversed - but it simply has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Roscelese (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several discussions of this technique for teaching writing through Google Books and Google Scholar. In my opinion, the coverage was significant enough but other editors should express their opinions. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mere mentions don't bring it to a very high level of significance. Yakushima (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. The mentions in toto are sufficient for me. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice Mere mentions in reliable sources do not make a subject notable. ----Divebomb is not British 14:57, 24 November 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) 00:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)2010 December 7[reply]

Keep - Lots of sources, although not many "major" sources, and is used in many teachers lessons. As a stub, I don't see a reason to delete it. - Pmedema (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable term used in teaching. Likely to be searched for by students. Not really covered in any other article. References provided. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Only 881 exact hits on Google, makes me agree with Kuguar03 for the purposes of en-wiki. However, I think it's a reasonably common in teaching circles, I did an Alphabiography in High school. I think it should be moved/transwikied to Wikiversity as an assignment topic. Aeonx (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems to be nothing but a neologism. JIP | Talk 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not impressed with the references in the article (at all), but Google produced a few hits. I've added one to the article, and I think it can scrape by. Drmies (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Transwiki, per Aeonx. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per WP:N. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:03, 9 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Cobb (photographer)

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines just for working with notable individuals Canyouhearmenow 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much to go on here, but current article doesn't meet notability guidelines as per nomination. TheMindsEye (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly what I found were Wiki-mirrors. Fixed a dead link on the page. As you can see The google aearch wasnt helpful, also found an obit. for a Betty Jean Cobb, no way of knowing if its the same person. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've had no luck finding sources either. Calumet's "New Faces Award" doesn't exist except for mentions of Betty Cobb, images on the bettycobb.com website (I checked six) don't include embedded rights info or creation data, there's no contact page on the site, the WHOIS is anonymous, and the home page was generated with Adobe GoLive 4 which is 1999 software. Certainly doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE and the photographer's identity seems so thoroughly obfuscated that it might be a spoof. - Pointillist (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pointillist, can't find any reliable sources whatsoever. Tooga - BØRK! 17:28, 9 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 03:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Becker–Wilander rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing to assert that this rivalry was particularly notable. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a rivalry not close and only met 10 times press says nothing of it. KnowIG (talk) 11:06, 11 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) 14:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel School of Supernatural Ministry

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

Delete. Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria presented at WP:GNG. Notability is not supported through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A tag on the article suggests a merge, but this article is already a fork of the suggested target. And created and deleted at least once before. I think the prior deletion was an A7, but since the church states this is a school, I thought to bring it here for discussion. Regards, Cindamuse (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, just like its associated articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 7 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) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Florendo Visitacion

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

An obscure martial artist with no reliable information with unsubstantial sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no independent sources that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find independent sources that supported his notability. The only source that looked promising was his obituary in Black Belt magazine. However, it turns out to have been written by his organization's successor so it isn't really an independent source. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 10 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 merge to Illyria. actual merge target can be varied per consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrian history

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

Article is a content fork of the already existing Illyrians, which has a history section. While the nominated article may appear big enough to warrant a separate article, about 90-95% of it is completely unsourced and also carries a whiff of copyvio. I propose Illyrian history redirect to Illyrians, in the same way that History of Ancient Greece redirects to Ancient Greece. Athenean (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article is the history of Illyria. The comparison of user:Athenean is impertinent: Illyrian history stays to Illyrians like Ancient Greece stays to Greeks. I don't see a problem with this article and wp:fork is something completely unrelated. Nxenes i dalluar (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the contribs make clear [7], this appears to be a single-use, throwaway account used to follow me around, likely a sock or meat. Athenean (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: as a pov for of Illyria, actually Illyria is de facto a historical article itself, similar to History of Ancient Greece, History of the Holy Roman Empire (all of them redirections). I suggest we improve the main article (Ilyyrians) instead.Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asyou can see Athenean, the bit about the Trojan and Kadesh wars have been deleted, while the Bronze Age section is sourced from 'The Illyrians to the Albanians' by Neritan Ceka, one of the most specialized Albanian archaeologists. Also the page is completely sourced. As I am the creator of this page, I say this page stays existing. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardyllis (talk • contribs) 09:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Comment This account is a sock of a banned user, now indef blocked. Athenean (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is still a target of disruptive activity: several cn tags removed, fringe unsourced paragraphs restored,[[8]] while ultranationalistic theories like the connection of Illyrians with Troy are described as 'acceptable'.Alexikoua (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the three articles: This one, Illyrians, and Illyria. They are all about the same subject and already contain much duplicated material. What is needed is one good article to give interested readers the basic information on Illyria, its people, and their history. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's nothing wrong with a history article here, so though this article is poor, a content fork, I don't see any reason to delete. Maybe merging for now would be good. —innotata 19:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not delete, either keep or merge with Ilyrians. Ideally, if there's enough content available, there would be a cover article, an article focused on history, one on language etc. Nothing that can't be done with some copyediting. --Tone 19:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, if enough content available make a separate article. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above! --Vinie007 13:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it can be used as a cover story to the main article Illyrians, just like Illyrian languages, Illyrian army, Illyrian wars, Illyrian clothing and so on other cover articles. It would be great if we have cover stories in every field, which text would be included in Illyrians article. Aigest (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: X history is just a pov fork of X, they are both about history. On the other hand X languages, army etc, are specialized articles. See for example Byzantine clothing, Byzantine battle tactics, Byzantine Cuisine.

It seems relevant to mention that the creator of this article was permabanned as a sockpuppet.Alexikoua (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect. With historical, ancient cultures, there is generally no room for two separate articles for "X" and "History of X"/"X'ian history". The two articles will always, by necessity, be identical in coverage, because there simply is no conceivable aspect of the topic "X" that is not part of their history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Aigest.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Alexikoua. Also, it was created by master puppeteer, so one more reason to move it. Also, obvious content fork. P.S. Glad that sock is blocked, but he will soon reappear, as always. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 22:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, @FutureP the content is already too expanded to be merged with Illyrians and it will be expanded even more, @Alexikoua I started sourcing the parts with cn tags and in case you leave messages to TC about my reply here I asked him before proceeding.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Zjarri: until now you have just removed 5 cn tags without explanation and without placing in their place something (apart from one caption) and with a wrong edit summary...Alexikoua (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added at least two sources that weren't in the article and I will continue adding sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice that large parts of the article, e.g. the entire "Legacy" section, are a cut-and-paste job from Illyrians, further weakening the case for a separate article, and strengthening the case for a merge. Athenean (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kitfoxxe. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kitfoxxe. --Zoupan (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Athenian per FuturePerfect. Article is quite problematic. For example the entire section about Bronze Age is completely unsourced and probably not of any Historical value since I am not aware of any mainstream Archaeologist who has actually linked a Bronze Age site with Illyrians.Seleukosa (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Athenian per FuturePerfect: article is very problematic.CrazyMartini (talk) 19:10, 13 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.

There was a reason for the deletion, yes? (i.e. Why was it deleted? It doesn't say). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.115.121 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salubri

Hi my name is Justin Achilli, I'm requsting deletion of the salubri page for violating my copyrights in my books: Vampire: The Masquerade (Revised Edition) Guide to the Sabbat (White Wolf Game Studio, 1999) Kindred of the Ebony Kingdom, (White Wolf Game Studio, 2003) and Kindred of the Far East, (White Wolf Game Studio, 1998) The excepts are directly from my books and I want the page deleted please. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jachilli2 (talk • contribs) 2010/12/04 20:53:36

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have left a message on the nominator's talk page asking him to email the Foundation with this concern. At face value, it does not appear to be a copyright violation, but without access to the text I have no way of verifying this one way or the other. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do I prove it with my text? I've trying to remove the copyright material which is above 80%.. but it always gets undone.. This is getting tiresome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jachilli2 (talk • contribs) 2010/12/07 12:02:36

I have done a search on some of the books you claim have been infringed, and have been unable to get at the text of those books to verify that the text of the article matches the text of the book. I suspect anyone else trying to address your issue may have run into the same roadblock. Further complicating this is that it appears that this article has been edited from several IPs (possibly by you) with no edit summary provided to explain why content has been removed. Removing content from articles without explanation – even if there is a legitimate reason – is considered vandalism. The average editor and many administrators cannot help you with your issue if we cannot easily prove that there is a copyright infringement. Please, do as I asked you to do on your talk page and send an email to the Wikimedia Foundation. Your email will be read and your issue dealt with by people better able to help you than we are. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking any objectively provable notability. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS This is to confirm that the OTRS team has received a complaint concerning copyright infringement (ticket #2010120910003528) and is currently investigating the matter. If the page is deleted as a result of this ongoing discussion, the investigation will be closed. If OTRS establishes that there is indeed a copyright violation, the page may be deleted regardless of the outcome of this discussion unless it is edited in such a way that the infringment is removed. This notice makes no assumption as to the validity of the copyright claim. Asav (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (OTRS)[reply]

If the mods aren't going to delete this article. Can we improve the notability by merging it with the other minor Salubri clans? I could help clean up the merged page and remove copyrighted information.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jachilli2 (talk • contribs) 2010/12/13 12:02:36

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of Optimus Prime

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

A non notable episode which at best should be deleted it has no third person information to justify a solo article. It has no external analysis as why this episode is more notable than any other Transformer episode Dwanyewest (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If any TF episodes are likely notable enough for thei own article, this would be one of them. NotARealWord (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION is that a keep vote or just a comment? Mathewignash (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the comment did not have the word "keep" in it. NotARealWord (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has some sources now, and in fact has been noted for it content as an important episode. Mathewignash (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not a very good article right now, but it's an important episode and I think it can be improved. ----Divebomb is not British 09:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most memorable Transformers episodes. This has been mentioned as the episode that should have ended the entire series. Not nearly all of the series's 98 episodes are notable but if any are, at least this one is. JIP | Talk 18:55, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OssiUrlaub

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

This is a random news item, IMO not notable per WP:NOTNEWS. The claim that this company was an airline is wrong. As I understand it, this is a travel agency who brought forth the idea of nudist flights (using chartered aircraft). Of course there were some media to pick up such an unusual subject, but there wasn't any deeper, long-term coverage. What is more, these flights weren't operated at all, so the article seems to be just speculative, again not notable per WP:CRYSTAL. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete: Subsequent article reported cancellation of flight. Shame, this would have added variety to the world. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 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 03:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kieren Lee Hovasapian

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

WP:Autobiography of amateur footballer in an amateur club per WP:NFOOTY: not yet played a professional match, and is not signed to a professional team. Invitrovanitas (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article fails to meet the guidance of WP:Notability (sports). --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability criterion for young football players is clear - "Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of [these criteria], or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG". I assume this is to protect youth players as much as to protect Wikipedia, but in any case it seems rather clear that this person does not yet meet the notability requirements. --bonadea contributions talk 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails on the sport angle as above, and the article also is a bit spammy for his 'day job' - or is that perhaps another hobby? Having looked at http://www.creativemediaeffects.com I am not particularly impressed. I could probably set up something like that in about half an hour - and I'm not a web designer. (I do work for hard copy printing, not web.) I note the infobox also lists his occupation as 'actor' while the article does not mention this at all. All in all, this looks like a vanity piece as there doesn't seem to be much to actually advertise. Sorry to be so hard, lad, but come back when there's really something to show for notability. Peridon (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly not notable. JDDJS (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable in the extreme. Jenks24 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort Air

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

I couldn't find any references on the internet that this airline exists or ever operated any significant flight services. The website is down (clicking at it, one is redirected somwhere else). This surely is not enough to pass notability per WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP, non-notable company. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dram Bok

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

Non-notable detail about one fictional character in a TV series. No coverage of this online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion removed by creator with no explanation. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:IINFO and the interpretation of GNG given in WP:FICTION. Fæ (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references and footnotes for Dram Bok have been updated and are verifiable. Check them out before deleting this entry, please. No copy-written material has been uploaded to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrett9000 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. If anything of use here is not already in the Charlie Kelly article, it can go there - possibly at the expense of something else there as that article seems to be overburdened with trivial detail. There's no need for a separate article on this minor aspect. (Personal note: the more I see of these articles on television programmes, the less likely I am to even think of getting a set.) Peridon (talk) 13:21, 7 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 keep. nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kell Muñoz Architects

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

Only sources are original primary sources, fails WP:V. No third party sources. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 08:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DoneNightryder84 (talk) 09:08, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation-Induced Mass

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

Completing nomination on behalf of Danko Georgiev. Rationale is: "This is Afshar's original research, not notable, not even publishd in peer-reviewed journal." Pgallert (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Caution, everyone -- Georgiev has a real bee in his bonnet about Afshar (see Gerogiev's user page). Can independent physics-knowledgeable people take a look? It does appear that AIP proceedings are (at least in recent years) peer-reviewed. EEng (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Double Caution, the paper is peer-reviewed, and notable. Georgiev has been prone for years to create problems with matters related to Afshar's work. He has been blocked from Wikipedia for insisting on breaking Wikipeida rules in the past. Sfsupro (talk)

Unless other people than Asfhar wrote about it, I don't see how this meets WP:N. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is significant work by a notable physicist, subject of a current debate on LHC and Higgs bosons. See my comments below. Sfsupro (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an incomplete stub. In its current state this is more harmful than good. This isn't fringe science or psychoceramics, but it is a blue-sky theory that has not yet been widely adopted. Give it a few years, who knows. It's credible to cover this on WP, but only if it's clearly presented as a new theory that's interesting, but not yet canon. Part of this would be to discuss its advocates and their background. If there's any counter-view that addresses this directly, that should be covered too.

As this stub is, it presents it as simple fact. This is wrong and misleading, especially to a lay audience. Right out of encyclopedic scope and whilst not OR, it would be POV. If we can't fix that, we should delete it.

Now if the editors who want to lynch me for being a COI POV physicist could please form a line to the left, and those wishing to lynch me for not being an active physicist or for being an applied physicist rather than a theoretician could form on the right. Dutchmen wishing to just call me a dick, take it back to Commons. Thankyou. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comments below and reconsider you vote in light the facts presented. Sfsupro (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change my view a jot. I'm already happy that the theory is notable, the problem is the quality of this sub-stub "article". We're arguing about one sentence here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and expand the stub. This is a significant peer-reviewed paper by a notable physicist who published an alternative mechanism to Inertia more than a decade ago. The fact that it is discussed in a London Daily Telegraph article makes this article notable enough. Will add this link to the article. Sfsupro (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep and expand" isn't a valid conclusion, because we don't have a team of trained minions to allocate the work of expansion to. If you can expand it during this AfD, please do so (and I'm happy to change my !vote). More likely, if you want to write a new article from scratch (One existing sentence will be no great loss) and take your time over it, I'd be happy to see it return, even if we'd deleted this stub in the meantime. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the rationale for the deletion nomination was "This is Afshar's original research, not notable, not even publishd in peer-reviewed journal" which is utterly false based on evidence I presented, and you agree with me, then you should consider changing your vote now. If you want to delete the article because it is just One existing sentence, then you should start a new deletion nomination on that basis, which will be easily fixed as I intend to write up the article with more details in the next few hours. Have to teach a class, will do it afterwards. Sfsupro (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. It's here for 7 days regardless.

On a separate point though, original noms are just an initial basis for discussion, not a case to be proven. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK started the expansion. Please feel free to help. Sfsupro (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability evidence appears really, really soon --- and please don't scream at me. There is clearly a longstanding shouting match going on in this corner of Wikipedia's coverage of physics, and I don't want to get drawn in. However... the article is about a concept, "Radiation-induced mass," not about the paper. The concept needs to be notable, and I don't see a single reference to "radiation-induced mass" anywhere, period. Nowhere. It may be groundbreaking. It may be the next big thing. And Afshar's paper may be a reliable source on it. But the concept doesn't seem to be notable, as evidenced by the fact that no one seems to have taken note of it, at least not yet.
The Daily Telegraph article changes nothing -- Afshar himself doesn't mention r-i mass in that article and even if he did, one scientist talking to the press about his own theory doesn't make that theory notable. Since there's an AfD underway, those who think the article should stay need to focus on refs demonstrating notability, meaning comment by neutral third parties on r-i mass, or citation of this paper (or other papers on r-i mass, though as mentioned I can't find any) by other scientists. Elaboration of the theory itself will be needed if the article stays, but won't help with notability. EEng (talk)

P.S. Sorry, I misspoke above. What I should have said is, I can't find a single reference to radiation-induced mass in scientific publications, other than a 1999 paper by Afshar and a brief nontechnical 2004 comment in New Scientist. (There are plenty of blogposts reprinting press releases from Afshar's "Institute of Radiation-Induceded Mass," however.) EEng (talk) 18:54, 9 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. The creator of the article apparently doesn't realize that there's a difference between an assertion of meeting WP:BIO and actually meeting WP:BIO - in other words, a claim that a subject is notable means a CSD#A7 is not allowed. But this is not CSD, and we actually investigate the notability instead of taking the article's word for it.

And when I looked, the ELs provided are not working, not about Lundy, not verifiable, or not reliable sources. Examples: a blog, which is the definition of a non-reliable source, plus two articles about entirely different people (one of whom is his co-host DJ, and Lundy's sole mention is "his co-host, Brent Lundy"). The band itself is possibly of borderline notability, though I don't see records released by a major label in the ELs provided. If this is the sum total of the coverage of the band, I don't hold out hope if it comes to AFD. Lundy himself, however, clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC. Krakatoa Katie 07:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Lundy

(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 and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion A7 does not apply: The article makes a credible assertion of importance and significance, sufficient to pass A7--Dr. Musique 14:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMusique (talk • contribs)

Also, in reviewing WP:Music guidelines it is clear that Brent Lundy meets guidelines under Criteria for musicians in that the musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria, in which this article meets the following:

1.Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries

4.Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.(Cravin Melon & Hootie & the Blowfish)
10.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)iPhone MixMeIn Application--Dr. Musique 15:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)(talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMusique (talk • contribs)

Comment – Let's address each point:

This is not a CSD tag, so your comment about the A7 does not apply.
I am sorry to say, the individual has not been the subject of "non-trivial" coverage. A few mentions in a couple of articles does not add up to "non-trivial" coverage.
There is not evidence of "non-trivial" coverage concerning his tours in the article.
There is nothing in the article to indicate the iPhone App is notable. There are thousands of apps that have music that are not notable. ttonyb (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment – Let's address your opinion and interpretation of what is notable or "nontrivial":

Comment - With all due respect, your track record for recommendations on speedy deletions is mixed. I think your bullet points are open to interpretation and I would be interested to see what others have to say. For example, one of the admins has already noted that the article -- "The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance". posted by ϢereSpielChequers 07:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC) in the post to your talk wall. I am assuming that s/he disagrees with your interpretation as bulleted above or the article would have been speedy deleted which s/he declined and then you afd'd it. All of the articles are from legitimate newspapers (The State, The Augusta Chronicle)or online versions of print media. If that is not nontrivial, I don't know what is. I would like to see what others have to say on the article. Also, since this is new to me and I will be writing more bios, it would be helpful if the wiki community could provide suggestions for enhancement versus just criticism. Thanks so much.--Docmusique1 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMusique (talk • contribs) --65.23.113.146 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am not sure what you mean my track record is mixed. If you are referring to a couple of reversed CSD nominations out of over 60K edits, I would question your interpretation of factual data - it appears you have not looked at the data deep enough to make an observation as such. More to the point, since this is not a CSD nomination your comment has little bearing on this AfD. Just because an article makes claims of notability does not mean it will not be deleted via a AfD. In this case the claims all seem to hinge on if the article is supported by "non-trivial" coverage.

If we review the articles, this is this what we find: [9] is an article about Augusta Players benefit concert which features a couple of brief quotes from Lundy. [10] is an article about the project he was in and only mentions his name as a member. [11] is again about a project he was in and only mentions his name in passing. [12] is about someone playing drums on a Lundy project and Lundy is not even closely the subject of the article. [13] is only a listing of a minor local radio show he hosts. You seem to want to point out that the "coverage" is from valid sources - in some instances, true, but the source has no bearing on the insignificance of the coverage. BTW - the blogs used to support the article is not valid sources per WP:RS. Please help me understand how you can mention any of this as "non-trivial" coverage. Even the combined result it is still very trivial.

Since you are new to Wikipedia, I have added a Welcome message to your talk page. It has a number of useful links to help one create their first article. I suggest you review the links and if you have any specific questions, please let me know on my talk page. ttonyb (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say Thank you. I am certain your job can be difficult in safeguarding the integrity of the many new articles that come along. I do want you to know that I did go through the Wikipedia tutorial and reviewed, not edited, several musican pages of the same stature prior to creating this one. I am not certain if it is appropriate to post examples, but I have several, that would show that my citations/references seem to be inline--perhaps exceed with the wiki policies. I am not sure how I am supposed to validate this, since it is up to the community. I have two other articles I am working on with citations from newspapers and websites, and contrary to how you described them, substantiate the narrative telling of the biography from an independent 3rd party, as does the current article on Brent Lundy. I guess the question becomes whether or not enough of you all feel it is nontrivial. I would think given the number of people Mr. Lundy has worked with that already have established and approved wiki articles would be evidence enough of his worth and notability, but perhaps I interpret the guidelines not as conservatively as others. I just want to make sure that his biography is not deleted without full and fair consideration in comparision to others of the same level of prominence (as stated, I can provide examples). I am in the process of adding additional information about the other notable (according to wiki) artists he has worked with and plan to add that before the 7 days is up-but think the article is substantiated with nontrivial support, as is. Thanks so much for your help and input. Also, I keep inserting the time stamp, but it doesn't seem to take. Not sure how to address that. If you have suggestions on how to correct that, that would be wonderful. I will start posting questions to your page as your requested and appreciate your offering to assist with any future help I may need. Thanks again, --Docmusique1 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Docmusique1 19:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DocMusique (talk • contribs)

Have added Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Brent Lundy as suggested by WikiProject Biography on the main article page's discussion tab --Docmusique1 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited from who he has worked with. Notability is not inherited from who his band has played with. MixMeIn is not notable. Lundy lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (from ttonyb's analysis of existing sources (adding The Daily Gamecock is a University paper) and my own search). duffbeerforme (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (changed my mind, see new vote below) - Lundy appeared on MTV Unplugged, this clearly meets WP:Music #10 ("Has performed music for a work of media that is notable"), MTV is viewed by millions of people around the world. I also think he meets #1 ("..the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works"). The discussion if the sources are "non-trivial" or not is of course subjective, but I believe the sources are mostly non-trivial within the context of the topic -- it's not the NY Times, but many notable subjects never make the NY Times, they are covered in more specialized sources relevant to the topic. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – He did not appear on MTV as an individual artist, but rather as a member of a the group The Ultraviolets. The appearance might support an article for the group, but does not meet the criteria in WP:MUSIC for him. As pointed out, notability is not inherited. ttonyb (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC says "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Green Cardamom (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – ...and those bands are? ttonyb (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom may have been suggesting that clause may be notability by inheritence. Notability can be gained by ones actions and achievements. Being a member of two notable bands is an achievement. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Refactor - article should be renamed Ultraviolets (band) (or another agreeable name). Keep existing material mostly, but condensed into a section titled "Brent Lundy", with additional information about other band members. Lead section and templates re-written to focus on band instead of Lundy. Reasoning Lundy is notable (in Wikipedia terms) mainly for his role with the band Ultraviolets. Ultraviolets are clearly notable, they played on MTV, they should have a Wikipedia article before Lundy does. Start there first. As Lundy's solo career grows with his new band Lundy, then he will meet the notability requirements to have his own article. I think we're jumping the gun here having a Brent Lundy article and no article about the Ultraviolets. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-For the following reasons and things to consider prior to final review:
1.)Meets WPMusician, alone, in that Brent Lundy has become one of the most prominent representatives of the local scene of a city (Columbia, South Carolina; Verifiability has been substantiated with independent, third party citations and links to articles.
2.) This article has met Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, in that the article in question actually documents that the criterion is true, which wiki standards state is more important when looking at people who may not be as well known. Vague claims were NOT made in the article or was Mr. Lundy's importance exaggerated, as citations verify his significant contributions, specifically to the Columbia music scene, spanning over a decade.
3.) Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. I believe, Mr. lundy meets this operational definition for notability in that it is worthy of notice and at least unusual enough to deserve attention. Second to Darius Rucker, opening for Craving Melon, continually being cited as the songwriter of the 90's in Columbia, South Carolina, deserves notice. Also, Mr. Lundy is still doing significant work with many great and well know musicians. There will be more to add to this article in 2011.
4.) Finally, Mr. Lundy is cited in archived articles in the State, Atlanta Constitution, & The Augusta Chronicle, but I would have to pay to access the articles (you can go to cites and run a search but when you click on article, fee for read pops up). Unfortunately, I do not have the resources at this time to purchase subscriptions to add to the list of already verifiable sources of support for the current article. Docmusique1 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1)Verifiability has been NOT been substantiated with independent, third party citations and links to articles. Third party citations showing this are simply not there.
- 2)This article has NOT met Wikipedia's standards for notability. Notability needs more than just the truth (seeWP:N and WP:V). This article has NOT met Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. Large sections are unsourced.
- 3) How does Lundy "meets this operational definition for notability"? Claim reads like WP:ILIKEIT. Where is Lundy "continually being cited as the songwriter of the 90's", a vauge claim in itself. Lundy does not inherit notability from others. What might be coming in 2011 is a crystall ball so doesn't matter.
- 4) Evidence of such citations can be provided without forcing users to pay. I notice that you have failed to provide such evidence.
- ps, have you read WP:COI. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:COI does not apply. I am merely working down a list of articles to add that another colleague of mine and I discussed. I learned about the subject's history through research on gigs played and newspaper articles, and band's myspace page. I am not sure how anything that is written can be viewed as not neutral. I do plan to edit other articles and briefly, already contributed to one, and I have several other articles in the works, but since this was my first and this process became very time consuming, I wanted to wait, to see how this process went. I have learned a lot, but quite frankly, didn't realize the AFD process could be so intense. All good, though. In terms of #1. The Free Times is a local, independent newspaper, as well as The State, and the Augusta Chronicle. They are written independently. #2. notability appears open to interpretation based on what I have read in wiki and it is a rule of thumb, not policy. One can have any or none of the criteria, but if it is worthy of notice, it can be included in wikipedia. #3. I explained how 3 was met. Almost all of the articles, if read in entirety, identify Mr. Lundy as prominent in Columbia, South Carolina. #4. I have provided 12 citations that substantiate the facts of the subject. If there are sections that aren't up to par, than I propose deleting those sections or modifying to them versus removing the whole article. The opening description is evidence enough of his importance and prominence as a representative of Columbia's music scene.Docmusique1 (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ultraviolets per GC. I agree, virtually all of this content can go into an article with pretty clear notability, so why waste time about a questionable one? PRESERVE what's important, we get a nice new article, and the material is there if/when the subject clearly achieves notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:32, 15 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brand Recovery

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

This term doesn't seem to be in widespread use. The article doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, and even the references don't come back to anything, as proven by the following searches: [14] [15] [16] [17] Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Reads like a setup for a pitch for consulting services. We can whitewash your PR problems! Brand Recovery is needed and used when a brand’s “identity” is lacking “legitimacy” (such as a product recall), and their image becomes tarnished as a result. A multitude of factors can affect a brand’s image such as the unearthing of poor quality of products, poor service, illegal activity, misuse of profits or funding, and any immoral behavior or concerning how an organization is run, treats employees, customers, or community. The specific message(s) sent out when an organization is using Brand Recovery, is called a “nugget”. This “nugget” is sent out to the stakeholders of the company. The stakeholders are those internal and external audiences of an organization who have or need information about that brand’s image. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Brand recovery" certainly exists as a concept. See [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] for example. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Brand recovery", in those sources, seems to refer to almost anything the juxtaposition of the two words might mean. Your first link seems to speak of the nostalgic revival of legacy brands. Your second source mentions "brand recovery" in a list of unspecific managerial issues involving brands. Your third source, van Hamersveld, is published patent nonsense. The relevant page was unavailable for your fourth link; Muthukrishnan and Chattopadhyay is inaccessible also, but seems to be the only one that relates to the actual subject of the article here, which seems to be a prospectus for a service to help brands recover from PR disasters. The last may also be; it's another cover for a journal issue about sales department responses to recalls due to bacterial contamination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So "van Hamersveld is published patent nonsense"? John Wiley & Sons, a reputable academic publisher, an editor who is dean of the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering at the Delft University of Technology -- looks like a reliable source to me. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But did you try to read the text? :) FWIW, it seemed to be about the "revival of nostalgic brand" version; the text I was able to see spoke of swapping older pictures for "food porn", but swathed its narrative in nonsensical talk about codes and semiotics. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the way to discuss sources. You may think it nonsense (which is am emotionally loaded way of saying you don't understand it) -- indeed I may (or may not) think that too. But we go by what reliable sources say, not by editors' personal opinions. Is there any objectively verifiable reason to suppose it is not reliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the purpose of the present discussion, the question is whether that text uses the phrase "brand recovery" in a way that suggests that there's a subject for coverage. It uses that as part of the title of a box containing the "food porn" narrative, but does not really go on to discuss "brand recovery" as the name of a subject itself as far as I could understand as much of the deliberately obscure text as Google was allowing me to see. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your opinion of semiotics is not the crucial aspect to this discussion. Where are we on the more pertinent question of whether "brand recovery" exists as a concept about which one might write an article? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so; my original remark was made more in the spirit of "good luck getting anything useful out of that". The sources seem to be about a variety of separate subjects: the revival of nostalgic brands, the revitalization of faded brands, and this article's subject, which would instead fall under the general rubric of corporate responses to PR disasters. Some of the sources you found searching on the phrase are about this sense, but most were about different meanings. I will do some searching; I suspect there may be some place in our coverage of public relations that already covers the topic. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and colon reset. Business continuity planning, business continuity, and disaster recovery would appear to all be titles which cover much of the same territory as this article. The first article is actually fairly pleasant and informative to read. At any rate, there's a bit too much original research, and rather, strangeness here to merge directly into any of these articles (Kate Moss is a "brand" only in a very loose and rigorless, unencyclopedic sense, for example; the article seems to treat a public apology as some kind of game piece; this article reads like it's shot through with marketing slogans) but I certainly would not object to userfying or preserving this text on talk somewhere. Curiosity links: nostalgia brand, brand revival, brand disaster. The sources you found might reference any of these articles, if they don't exist already. Brand recovery in this article's sense should be a subheading in the brand disaster article, would be my thinking. At any rate, if kept this should move to Brand recovery. Nothing Says Spammer like Emphatic Capitals. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:11, 9 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 03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Cormier

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

An apparent failure to meet WP:ATHLETE NW (Talk) 05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barring any introduction of other information, I see seveal issues: 1) no sources given; 2) no information given about his "potentially notable" collegiate career (other than he was a "star" at Colorado); 3) generally assistant coaches are not notable at the college level; 4) I see no reason at present the subject meets WP:GNG; and 5) the use of the word "star" leads to the possibiity of violating WP:NPOV.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NSPORT as both a player and a coach -Drdisque (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a head coach, not a notable college career as far as i can tell. also, he's at UNLV not Montana on off chance this is kept.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:01, 11 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 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esmatulla (Guantanamo detainee 888)

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

Completely fails WP:BIO. Sources are either a) primary documents dealing with him in an insignificant and routine fashion or b) secondary sources dealing with him in a routine fashion. We cannot base notability, particularly in such controversial and potentially damaging cases, on routine, primary reporting. Ironholds (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees: long blocks of quoted legalese is not a subsitute for actual notability. The article lists nothing notable about him except for the fact that he was a repatriated detainee, which is not enough for me. I doubt that Esmatulla is even is complete name, reflecting the incomplete and almost speculative nature of the article, such as his date of birth (WP:BLP and WP:BALL). bahamut0013^words _deeds 02:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faizullah (Guantanamo detainee 919) and similar AfDs. Not notable other than be for being a detainee at Guantanamo, fails WP:MILMOS/N for lack of significant independent coverage. Anotherclown (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anotherclown. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:05, 10 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 g3, vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Puddi

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

Non-notable, probably non-existent "drug". No sources to verify existence. Speedy tag removed by anonymous IP. ... discospinster _talk 04:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax, just another 4chan meme. Hairhorn (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that there are no sources at the moment because this a rising drug, but I'm sure within the next few weeks the page will have sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.194.51 (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently it's a 4Chan thing. Hairhorn beat me to it. ... discospinster _talk 04:34, 7 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:CSD#G11 blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting other websites, which is very clearly what this article is doing. Virtually all of the policy-based statements below favor deletion per WP:NOT and WP:LINKFARM. A great majority of the keep comments originate from single purpose accounts, quite possibly canvassed to appear here by the subject organization or its supporters. I'll also cite WP:IAR and WP:BATTLE: this discussion is quickly drifting into the realm of a useless battle. It will serve no useful purpose, and most likely lead to more disruption, if continued. There is no point in generating additional heat that sheds no further light on the matter. Regardless of what the rules say about discussion lengths, we do not need to continue a useless or disruptive discussion when the result is already clear. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of WikiLeaks mirrors

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

It is unnecessary to list all of the sites mirroring wikileaks. that not Wikipedia is and besides wikileaks give other wikis a bad name. JDDJS (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:LINKFARM. In addition, a list such as this is very hard to keep updated. jonkerz ♠ 04:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LINKFARM. Whether Wikileaks give Wikipedia a bad name or not (I think they don't), is irrelevant. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of the list is to make sure anyone visiting the main wiki-article about WikiLeaks can easily find a working link to the WikiLeaks website (so this isn't a linkfarm). The editors at the main WikiLeaks page have decided that it is ok. to give some links to mirrors, so there isn't an issue about giving Wikipedia a bad name, according to the Wiki-community (despite WikiLeaks being controversial). Then since the mirrors don't have a long lifetime, and the big lists of mirrors in found on the mirrors themselves, it may be difficult for readers to actually find a working mirror. So, that's why I created this list and then linked to this list from the small list of mirrors on the main WikiLeaks wiki-page. Other media outlets also have lists of mirrors, but these are not so comprehensive and they are obviously the main targets of the people who want to close down WikiLeaks. Maintaining this list is then also not so difficult, precisely because you're bound to find some mirror sites that work and they will have updated information on the active mirrror sites. Count Iblis (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are already two links to mirror sites in the infobox, it is better for people off-wiki to maintain these. SmartSE (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a "media outlet". This is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Under normal circumstances we wouldn't need a big list of mirrors. The issue now is that, because of a dedicated attempt to bring down all the WikiLeaks sites (at least those that are the easiest to find), it may be difficult even give a few working links in the infobox in the near future. Tomorrow, Obama may declare that WikiLeaks gives material support to terrorism and then Google will stop indexing WikiLeaks mirrors and remove WikiLeaks search results, major news organizations will stop publishing lists of mirrors and most governments will close down WikiLeaks mirrors promptly. A cat and mouse game will then follow, the list of mirror sites will mutate so fast that you won't be able to keep track of the mirror sites and even give one working link in the main article's infobox.
  However, if we have a big list of links here, one can always take a few of these and put them in the infobox. If they don't work anymore, all you have to do is take some others from the list. Meanwhile this list will be maintained using any one of the working mirrors and take the mirror list from that one. This way the Wikipedia community can maintain the list and make sure there are always a few working mirrors listed in the infobox, even if all the governments decide to crack down hard on WikiLeaks and everything moves underground. And that without Wikipedians having to spend a lot of efort to dig up these mirrors which by that time would be hard to find (compare e.g. to Al-Qa'ida websites) Count Iblis (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Couldn't this be achieved by posting the links on the talkpage of the wikileaks article? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It kinda already is - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 17:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/Speedy Keep: The FBI and other authorities who try to shut down any iteration of Wikileaks could find this list of mirrors quite useful. Otherwise, they'll be in for a longer wild goose chase.
It's also a double-edged sword in that anyone who avidly reads Wikileaks would find any of these mirrors useful in the event that the main Wikileaks shuts down. --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 06:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a linkfarm. WP:ITSUSEFULL applies. DC T•C 06:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LINKFARM and WP:LISTCRUFT. In addition, if the real WikiLeaks site goes down, the mirrors wouldn't work right either, would they? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sure this is useful, but Wikipedia is not a repository of external links.—Chris!_c/t 07:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Serves no encyclopedic value, however useful it may be, it is not a reason to keep it. SmartSE (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As linkfarm. Andjam (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I could think of many reasons for not deleting ths page but perhaps the most cogent would be 'Freedom of the Press'. people should be fforded the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to read the contents of the WikiLeaks site not the US Government. Eog1916 (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Keep unless you believe that a North Korea type of censorship should be the norm.Eog1916 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We aren't trying to censor anything, but there is no reason why we should have this list any more than a list of other website's mirrors. SmartSE (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For most other pages of links, I would agree with the above comments regarding it being a link-farm and so forth. There are many Wikipedia entries regarding websites. In all of these cases, it is sufficient to place a single link to that website in the relevant article (see eBay for example). Obviously, while this may be desirable, it is not possible in the case of Wikileaks. I think the benefits of providing a link to the website (or a mirror) outweighs the cost of having a page of links. I think an article in an encyclopedia should value keeping the most relevant reference above considerations of layout and linkfarms. As for any arguments as to whether Wikileaks should exist at all, I find that as irrelevant as most authors above me. Timbo76 (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Timbo76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Speedy delete - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 11:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because per WP:NOTLINK this does not merit its own article. We already have a huge list here on the article's talk page. This should be sufficient for users wanting to "take a few of these and put them in the infobox" Note:I meant to put in my reason. Slipped my mind - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 21:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I edited the article to remove unsourced content (which happened to be every item on the list). We can't list mirrors without a reliable source stating that the site is indeed a mirror and not a scam site set up to fraudulently take donations, or a data-gathering site or whatever. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia's mission is to bring knowledge to the masses. WikiLeaks is a site with a similar mission. Keeping this list, at least until the controversy dies down, fulfils the missions of both. Keep it at a resource until WikiLeaks has a stable domain. Orismology (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Orismology (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- You may wish to read WP:NOT so you can see why that argument is not going to hold much weight. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I would also be satisfied if this list is integrated in the Wikileaks article. Anyhow, besides freedom of press, it's also something that really keeps the world busy. So how it is saved I don't really care, just as long as it IS! Robster1983 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The internet seems a good place to find out about wikileak mirrors, why should a list be included in an encyclopedia? --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a linkfarm, nor a soapbox. Take political advocacy efforts elsewhere. Ray^Talk 14:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note at the moment, it isn't even a list of mirrors... I'll add what is there into the wikileaks/cables article. SmartSE (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP --- I Am Not An American NEONAZI, Who Else Would Want It To Be Deleted ? --- A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- What? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Wikipedia's goal is free access to information. So Wikipedia should facilitate access to free information - especially, if it is endangered and being fighted by governments and other forces. What's more, this is a historic example of how the web fights back. Even if the list of mirrors will not get updated forever, it should be kept for historic and encyclopedic purposes - to show, what happened on this planet's communication infrastructure within a few days. Ds77 (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not Wikipedia's goal to provide every piece of information that existed. Note that there are certain things that Wikipedia is not. Mere collections of external links is one of them.—Chris!_c/t 21:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Usually this kind of article would be deleted but I believe given the fact that is a highly notable event it should be kept. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MUST Keep . I always thought wikipedia is more than encyclopedia!, I visit wikipedia for latest news and events not news sites....here things are updated and kept upto date and sources are public edited so trustable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.89.148 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's wrong on so many points it's hard to know where to start, but you can start by visiting n:Wikinews:Newsroom and noting that the place that really is a news service has four Wikileaks news stories in development right now. This project is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I just want to clarify that I didn't nominate this just because WikiLeaks give wikis a bad name. I just meant that as more of a side note. But on that note, with all of the legal issues involving WikiLeaks, this page can cause harm to Wikipedia. Again that's not the main reason why it should be deleted but just additional reasons. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why Do You Feel The Need To Justify Yourself ? No One Believes You Anyway --- A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:A41202813@GMAIL.COM, don't make this personal - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 21:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - --- I Am Sorry, But I Feel That Freedom Is At Stake Here, And This Is A Turning Point In History, Of Course It Is Personal, Only Gangsters Say That It Is Never Personal --- A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you actually trying contribute to this discussion, or are you just bored and decided to spam this? Because that what it seems like. JDDJS (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been improved, but it needs some help in expanding some topics. If the subdomains section is so huge, I think that it can be blanked. I'm not sure if having a large list of links is useful, but the topic is interesting, it is a real example of Streisand effect. emijrp (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Must KEEP. This article is more than just a set of links. It already looks more professional. Apart from the fact that this looks better now, it can be a historical record of what happened at this point in history. And once the decision to keep this article is made, other tangential information, that may not be suitable to go into the main Wikileaks article, can be put in this one to make it even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.165.207.2 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

- That is not the project's scope. This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Wikipedia is not a primary source historical record. If history isn't already recorded outwith Wikipedia, it doesn't get to be recorded firsthand within Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above comment. -Abhishikt 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)
- Then you don't understand the project scope, either. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not mere collections of external links --Cybercobra (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look at all those pretty links that don't belong here! WP is not a collection of links, as has already been pointed out above. Netalarm^talk 04:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list provides info on the mirror sites. Wikipedia is a repository of info, and this is valuable info, so deleting this would be like deleting the USA page. 99.253.222.228 (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as per WP:NOTCATALOG. linkfarms just create more a bigger mess to maintain. The urls are not stable to be useful. --Visik (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Politically motivated deletors offering the spectacle du jour of spastic hurling of WP rules at the wall, hoping one will stick. Links bad -vs- links won't work. Which is it? One of them at least is an invalid argument: there are 1005 mirrors, so many links can be broken and the article is still useful. After that said, I cease to care. Keep on screwing up WP, it just makes the places I left WP to work on look better. Anarchangel (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the relevant policy here at all? DC T•C 08:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Way to totally fail at assuming good faith. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please, those who say that this deletion proposal is censorship, must help to improve the article adding data. Those who say that the list is only a farm link, must re-read the article, now, it contains a lot of information, not only links. Also, we can remove the subdomains section and leave only the top level domains. If needed, we can convert this article from "List of WikiLeaks mirrors" into "WikiLeaks mirroring efforts" or something like that, with more literature. emijrp (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your efforts would be better directed adding to WikiLeaks#After the US diplomatic cables leak which I anticipate will soon split into it's own article regarding attempted censorship and attempts to combat it. There have been no arguments to keep here beyond WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL so unless a new argument comes up, it is likely that this will be deleted. Simply copying press releases and a list of mirrors doesn't make an encyclopedia article. SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HOW BIASED CAN YOU GET ? "X has made few or no other edits outside this topic".

Why Is That Important, And Why Only Points For Those Who Say KEEP ? ADOLF, I Love You | --- A41202813@GMAIL.COM (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is important because this is not a decision reached by count of votes. Rather, the closing admin will decide based on the merit of the arguments made. Therefore, an account with few or no other edits will most probably be unaware of WP policy/ not know enough to make a convincing vote. Also, please keep civil - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Single-issue editors tend to be biased. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the first part of the article is OK in my mind, it quickly gets very biased, and I really don't see how it could be fixed while maintaining the article. Also, there are many people opposing per WP:LINKFARM - I do so as well. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a link farm. Furthermore, which sections are biased? emijrp (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as said, nothing but links; barring that, there is nothing else that can't be found in the regular WikiLeaks article. –MuZemike 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Delete - Not what Wikipedia is here to do. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. And no it is not Wikipedia's goal to collect every tiny bit of trivia known to man. What encyclopedia would have list of external links which mirror an online website? Please despam by deleting this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only substantive content violates WP:NOTMIRROR. I don't see any reason to ignore that policy right now as the list of mirrors is freely available. Any other content can be merged with the main article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect but gut the content. Once the lists of external links to non-notable providers are stripped out per WP:LINKFARM and WP:IINFO, anything left can easily be merged into the main article. Most of the actual content is already covered at WikiLeaks#Hosting anyway. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:06, 8 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 deleted by User:Kim Dent-Brown. Non-admin closure. Morgan Wick (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Gwillimbury (disambiguation)

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

Totally unnecessary disambig, only 2 links: 1 for the town, and 1 for the town's station, which is already linked in the article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, most redundant dab ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely unnecessary disambiguation. This can be replaced by direct links between the two articles. JIP | Talk 18:58, 7 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 Userfy at request of primary editor. ^Bongo_matic 02:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albek Duo

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

Unable to find any significant coverage of the duo or its recordings. ^Bongo_matic 01:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. The Albek Duo entry is currently being adjusted in accordance with the editor's request. In terms of notability, the Duo's premiere of the Gemini Concerto, written especially for them and arguably the first major concerto for the violin-piano combination since Mendelssohn, was immediately recorded by Naxos Records and will be released in 2011. Their performances have primarily been in Europe, but they are preparing a North American tour and are now represented by the Price-Rubin agency, a major classical music agency in the United States.

As a classical chamber music ensemble, I don't believe they should be part of the debate involving what appear to be proposed deletions of rock bands.

I explained in a previous response that my contributions to the article were not those of someone who had business connections with the subject. I asked that the notification to that effect be taken down. I believe the Albek Duo to be an appropriate entry for Wikipedia and welcome the cooperation of the editor in revising the article. I ask that you suspend the deletion activity while appropriate changes are made. Marinaperry (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, it should be noted that in order to be included in the encyclopedia, the duo may meet any of a number of different notability guidelines, not only WP:MUSICBIO.

Second, the discussion goes on for seven days at least, so there is plenty of time for you to add relevant sources to the article and notify participants in this discussion if you have done so. ^Bongo_matic 01:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes and additions are in progress. Thank you for your suggestions.Marinaperry (talk) 07:46, 8 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 redirect to H-1B visa. merge any sourced content Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H1b crisis

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

This topic is/was not notable as an independent topic. I found 2 reliable sources using the term ([24] and [25]) along with a variety of lawyers and legal firms using it. While the topic itself is dated, I can't even find clear references from the time of the supposed crisis that support that this term was widely used. Any relevant information can be merged into H-1B visa. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not enough sources to warrant its own article, it could just be included in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 03:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to H-1B visa. There's always an ongoing crisis about immigration. Ray^Talk 14:59, 7 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 No consensus Even ignoring the many "keep" !votes from what may be a record number (seven) different IP addresses, the split is fairly even on keeping or deleting, with one user suggesting merge. The consensus is that the YouTube celebrity is notable, and the difference of opinion is over whether a summary of episodes is necessary. The comments from IPs are always welcome, and can influence a discussion, but carry no weight as evidence of overwhelming support for a particular position. Mandsford 22:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes

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

Excessive list of online video game review videos, unsourced and while the show itself might be considered notable, there is nothing to support this list Jac16888 ^Talk 01:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable episodes of an unremarkable webseries. No significant references from independent publications to confer any kind of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd think that being one of the most famous video game commentators in this day and age would be "significant" enough to warrant its own article. Are you telling me that someone who's garnered hundreds of millions of online views for his videos and has been featured on multiple national TV channels is not "remarkable" enough for you? 71.246.75.5 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I never quite understand why 'list of episode' articles are kept, but they are, so surely if the series is notable, then this list is notable? Can anyone clarify what the necessary criteria is for a 'list of xxxxx episodes' article?--Korruski^Talk 10:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Like previously with the nomination of List of the Nostalgia Critic episodes, it was resolved by making it a new article about the character and the show, as well as the episodes. AVGN already has a page, so just add the epiosdes there. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 11:08 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Contrary to the comment above, I believe that these are notable episodes of a notable web series. There is no reason to delete this page as it is a reasonable contribution to the Wikipedia community.Anber (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No less important than other lists. AVGN is more notable than certain people have indicated. 173.243.45.162 (talk)— 173.243.45.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep I'd argue strongly against the idea that AVGN is not significant simply because he is one of the earliest and most notable of the trend of nostalgic reviewers with each episode getting 1m+ views. Whilst I myself have never really seen the idea behind "list of episodes" wikipages if you delete this one you would have to delete all of them on the same criteria.AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unique collection of information. Just because one person is not a fan of the show does not mean it is unremarkable. This is the MOST notable retrogaming show around, and episodes consistently get over a million views apiece on gametrailers alone. I have always found this page to be a supremely useful resource for cataloging and organization of the places where the episodes are available, and I am quite alarmed to find that it is being considered for deletion. The information on this list is not compiled anywhere else to my knowledge; it is a composite of information found on http://www.gametrailers.com/screwattack, http://www.screwattack.com/shows/AVGN-The-Angry-Video-Game-Nerd, and http://www.youtube.com/user/jamesnintendonerd; but in none of those places it is arranged and organized as cleanly as it is on this page. I have this page linked in my browser favourites, and use it regularly. Losing it would be a travesty. -Scott (no account) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.58.134 (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — 208.110.58.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep - This is a one of the most well organized and useful episode lists I've seen on this whole wiki, both for fans of the series who just want links to videos and curious newcomers who are looking for where to start. It should serve as an example for other similar articles. As for being "unsourced"... it clearly is sourced, each episode link is evidence for the posted descriptions. I will be very disappointed if this article gets removed. 71.246.75.5 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)— 71.246.75.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep - I too use this page very frequently to view episodes of AVGN that i haven't watched yet and it would be a massive mistake to delete this article. Like AnOrdinaryBoy has mentioned, you'd have to delete all of the "list of *show goes here* episode articles to accord with the deletion of this article. On CineMassacre there is an episode list but it does not provide YouTube/Gametrailer links plus the website is very laggy. It also doesn't include the spinoffs for this show. If AVGN is not classed as major then nothing on this planet is. All of his videos have a total of at least 200 million views. MikeWazowski is most likely an Irate Gamer fanboy that hates AVGN and wants it to be eradicated from the web. Well, this wikipedia article is most definitely staying whether you like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.98.145 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — 77.86.98.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep - I use this page very often when finding info on the AVGN or, as the guy above me said, just to view episodes of the AVGN. I'm honestly completely and totally surprised that this is even being mentioned for deletion. Okay, so there is a lot of unsourced material, but why not just bring THAT up instead? It's not like it's poorly written either: there's a lot of information here about each episode. Hell, if it's really that big of a deal, I'll even get involved with references now. Like IP 71.246.75.5 said, I'll be very disappointed if this is deleted. And I will counter MikeWazowski by saying this: just because you don't think it's good or remarkable doesn't mean it isn't. One million and great views on GameTrailers alone? Yeah, you're right, it's not that big of a deal at all. Separate your own person feelings when you judge importance. I hate Lamb of God with a passion, but that doesn't mean I'll campaign to get their Discography removed. To be frank, that's just plain silly. --Silverskylines (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a link repository.WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument in deletion discussions (and frankly, neither is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). And no one is claiming that AVGN isn't notable. I might be converted to the side of keeping, but none of the keep arguments have swayed me, especially given the large number of IPs and how similar they all sound. Morgan Wick (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No convincing arguments to delete. The fact remains that I can see no true reason nor indeed any argument yet put forth as to why this page is more worthy of deletion than all the other "episode list" pages on wikipedia. This page is a legitimate informational supplement to the main page for AVGN, just as the vast majority of "episode list" pages are to their respective parent pages. One of four things must happen here: One; this page is deleted and all other "episode list" pages on wikipedia are also deleted for the same reason. Two; delete this page and also delete everything related to AVGN, since none of it is notable enough for deletionist standards anyway. Three; preserve the status quo, I do not believe anything needs to be changed here. Four; someone puts forth some REAL reasons why this page is suddenly up for deletion. As far as un-cited information goes, I do not see anything specific that needs additional citation. Each episode is its own reference. If someone feels the article needs clean-up, then flag it for that and go watch some episodes instead of bleating that there are not enough references; but this does not seem anywhere near deserving of deletion. And apparently my IP is being labeled as a single-purpose account. Hodgepodge, I tell you! -Scott (will let the sign bot get my signature for me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.58.134 (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly There was no real reason that this article was put up for deletion. Yes i am the same one that commented a few comments above. Every episode is a reference to its' self. If this page is deleted, then tens of thousands of articles will have to be deleted based on this rule. Plus, i'll have to favourite every episode instead of using the convenience of this article. Either we can keep this article and every episode list or we can delete this and thousands that would take years to delete every one.Plus people are adding to it all the time. It's too late to delete all the episode lists IMHO because Wikipedia is so big. I don't understand why some person wants to get rid of every clean, clear and convenient list on Wikipedia and force us to search higher and lower on the internet. Oh, and Morgan Wick, if you think our IPS seem similar, track us. You'll find we're thousands of miles apart. Not everyone has to join Wikipedia to seem legit. AVGNs' target audience are teens that know not a lot about the 8bit/16bit era and all the rubbish games that were made. I'm 13 and would not consider joining wikipedia just to seem legit. You could track all the IPs as many different times as you want. We're unrelated. I apologise for having to post again just to point out something. See you guys later if some trouble stirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.226.128 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — 94.72.226.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It was not my intention to accuse any of the ISPs of being sockpuppets (that might be impossible to prove), though meatpuppets are another matter (though given the circumstances we're a long way from even suspecting a web site of driving people here). I don't know whether or not AVGN is notable enough to have an episode list (NOT "notable enough to have an article", that is undisputed despite some disrespectful statements above), or even what criteria to base that decision on; for something with so much consensus that it should exist, the guidelines are lacking for when it should exist. But "there is no one-stop place for links to all the AVGN videos," unfortunate a circumstance as that may be, is NOT a reason to keep, because that is not what Wikipedia is. The arguments to delete haven't been well backed-up and haven't reflected well on those who've made them (and for that matter haven't been many), but there haven't been any convincing arguments to keep either. Again, read WP:NOT, WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Unless new information appears this is probably leading to a no-consensus closure.) Morgan Wick (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think I realized what Mike's point is up top: AVGN may be notable, but the individual episodes themselves are not. That's debatable, and again I don't know if that's reason enough to delete, but I think it was originally stated uncarefully enough that the AVGN fanboy brigade is reacting to a perceived slight against AVGN himself instead of its intended target. Morgan Wick (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so much fanboyism - be careful with hyperboles. The individual episodes are not notable; that's why we have this list, and I see Mike's post as just being insulting. Not every episode has a page, and this list contains a presentation of accurate (if, at times, extraneous, but that can be edited with a simple click) information regarding each episode. This isn't a meat-puppet show... Of course people who are fans of the show will come to this page and argue against its deletion. I think the person who referred to there being no "one-stop place for links to all the AVGN episodes" misspoke and meant that there's not an accurate compendium of the episodes that contain information on release, games reviewed, etc. Sure, you can always go to the Cinemassacre/GameTrailers/ScrewAttack web sites to get it, but can't you do the same with any other TV show? This list combines and presents that information. I'll even point out the longevity of the issue: this page has existed for a long time, and it's just now being challenged? Yes, I know that ex post facto is a rhetorical fallacy, but that's not what I'm getting at. --Silverskylines (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Strong Keep, but edit What's the reason for not having a list of AVGN episodes? What if you want to watch E.T. by AVGN but you don't have a list? If you have this list, then you'll know that the AVGN has yet to review this awful game. But there's sometimes no spaces after full stops in the description, and it's mostly simple sentences. Please edit this. 82.13.79.52 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)— 82.13.79.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Plus, you should asterisk the swearing. 82.13.79.52 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus - Close this Debate. PS I have every right to post under an IP. 70.26.37.243 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)— 70.26.37.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep As long as the AVGN show has an article, I think a single spinout on the episodes is fine. The argument is that any sources that count toward the show must also count to the episodes which make up the show as a whole. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Spoony Experiment episodes

AfDs for this article:

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

While the show itself would appear to show some notability, enough to survive an AFD, this list has no meaningful content, no sources and is entirely list cruft Jac16888 ^Talk 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable episodes of an unremarkable webseries. No significant references from independent publications (no references at all, to be frank) to confer any kind of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the third AfD for this list in a month! (It was also part of Articles for deletion/The Spoony Experiment.) As far as I know, episode lists for television shows (web or braodcast) are not controversial content. At worst, merge into The Spoony Experiment, which would conform to WP:EPISODE. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't the place for 'random lists of stuff', and there's no real content to these videos to warrant a list of this kind. The entire list could be really summed up into either "Noah reviews something" or "Noah rants on something in a vlog".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 10 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 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desroy Peters

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

really short biography of a seemingly non-notable person Usb10 ^Connected? 01:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Less that twenty Ghits, most of which are wikis and social networking sites. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without fully pro appearances or significant coverage, he clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no coverage to suggest anything of note--ClubOranje^T 09:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:27, 9 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Tudela

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

BLP unsourced for 2 years, no reliable secondary sources appear to exist. Kevin (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Kevin (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment google news seems to have some links that might be about him, but they're in spanish, which is a language I don't speak. Anyone fluent who can parse through and see if there's any wheat, or if its all chaff? Umbralcorax (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added I've added to the article from the Glasgow Herald, the BBC, and Artforum International. At least one of the mentions is passing, but the artist has received attention in significant worldwide publications, and most of the publications are in Portugese (the ones I've added are in English), there's also at least one in Italian and another in Spanish. The above sources convince me that the artist is notable via the GNG directly, and with a Portugese-speaking editor the article could likely be whipped into a much better shape, I'm hesitant to take on the project using automated translation, art terms are fairly poorly translated by such. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:42, 6 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) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Decker, seems to have been a poor nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems, in its current state, to be a straightforward pass of the GNG and CREATIVE. Ray^Talk 02:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all of the hits for his name in Google news archive seem to be about the same person. But enough of them are, and enough of them have been added to the article, that this looks like a pass of WP:CREATIVE #3 and WP:GNG to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 9 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. Spam Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master-Tech Diving Services

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

No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Does not meet the requirements of notability for inclusion of a company (WP:COMPANY). A Google search on the company shows only the company's own website, listings in trade directories and the Wikipedia article. The article does not appear to be anything more than promotional material for the company. Rainjar (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:07, 30 November 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) 00:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPANY and general notability The^FSAviator • T 03:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Article is an unsourced advertisment - Tagged as such - Pmedema (talk) 08:50, 7 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 no consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Linsky

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

unreferenced puffpiece tagged for three years, lots of namedropping and wild claims of notability, yet... Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed the substantial chunk of the article that was lifted from his own website as a WP:COPYVIO and added a reference to Scott Yanow's Allmusic biography. It is now a much shorter article, and still has several quotations without full attribution, but it is a better foundation to build on, and he does seem notable: 4 of the albums on the Allmusic discography have reviews in their own right. AllyD (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:08, 24 November 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) 01:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can give some indication this meets Wikipedia's notability standards. There *are* news results for him, but they seem to be mainly ads or small articles saying little more than that he will be playing at such-and-such location. --Susan118 ^talk 19:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:MUSICBIO criterion 1 multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources: see the Allmusic reviews by Scott Yanow, Steve Huey and Ross Boissoneau (from my link above); criterion 5: multiple releases on Concord Jazz and GSP Recordings. AllyD (talk) 23:52, 1 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) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD. Multiple albums on significant labels reviewed at Allmusic including one that's an "Album Pick". --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:12, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Sabga Aboud

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

This article is about a businessman that has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article was an unreferenced biography of a living person, and I was able to add one citation that confirms he founded Pizza Boys, but the article really just quotes him and isn't about him. I could find no other coverage. Whpq (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 24 November 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) 01:26, 30 November 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) 00:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did find some WP:RS's. This BLP is the owner of a number of restaurants but I don't see where he moves into the realm of notability. - Pmedema (talk) 09:12, 7 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. There was little interest in this discussion, but considered the bare, unsupported assertion of notability to fail in the face of the brief, but policy-driven "delete" comments. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lota Hadley

(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) 16:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article consists of mauch stuff scheduled for the future and a pile of name-dropping. Her actual production record shows no awards or critical recognition nor is there significant coverage in reliable sources. The article does provide this link but the coverage is insubstantial, and certainly inadequate to establish notability on its own. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel that this person is notable in her field. Friuli (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why she is notable, and how this is documented in reliable sources? Just declaring that you think she is notable isn't persuasive. -- Whpq (talk) 23:10, 24 November 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, 30 November 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) 00:04, 7 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 no consensus. This discussion received little attention after relisting; no prejudice against renomination if desired. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James West (Australian journalist)

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

Author of one little-known book. Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. Adpete (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his recent press from his youtube campaign makes him notable. westius (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:RECENT. recent coverage should not bias notability. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Libstar. It was a "human interest" story rather than real news, and coverage wasn't very widespread (about 15-20 hits total on Google news). Merely being in the news doesn't make one notable. Adpete (talk) 03:21, 29 November 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) 01:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's received significant and ongoing press coverage in relation to the book (can provide sources if disputed) (WP:AUTHOR guideline 4, significant critical attention) but he's also notable for his contribution generally to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, as covered in Meanjin (here) and his appearance at this conference. Most importantly, he meets the general notability guidelines of "significant coverage in reliable independent sources", and that's the final arbiter of the matter. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see publicity blurbs and a couple of blog reviews, but I found only one mainstream review of the book, in the Otago Daily Times,[26] and one fleeting mention in The Age.[27] He has been on radio but that's a long way short of WP:ENT . WP:N says, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" and I don't see that. Adpete (talk) 11:52, 30 November 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) 00:03, 7 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 03:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cooke (cyclist)

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

Does not appear to meet standard of WP:Athlete#Cycling, and refs do not seem to meet WP:GNG Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 25 November 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) 01:35, 30 November 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) 00:03, 7 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. Courcelles 03:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Okey

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

does not meet WP:Notability for tennis, or for squash Mayumashu (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:23, 30 November 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) 00:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is some press coverage of the guys' career [28], though I'm not sure we could verify all this content. I am concerned that the article creator knows the subject, which probably makes a lot of this original research, well-intentioned as it is.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from talk page, essentially a keep from article creator:This article was recommended for deletion because of concerns that the subject of the article did not meet the notability criteria for Tennis. I have now updated the article to reflect that he does. It appears from the news articles that I have now cited and linked in the article Frank Okey that Mr. Okey played in the 'Main Draw' of the US National Tennis Championship at Forrest Hills in 1952, which is the US Open. I confirmed that this is true today through personal communication with Mr. Okey. He did indeed play in the main draw. Thus, the article now reflects that Mr. Okey passes the criteria for notability for tennis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Tennis. This is the first article that I've posted, so I'll look forward to more feedback. Please let me know if I've not posted this feedback in the correct place. Thanks, Aldoleopold ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldoleopold (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His participation in the 1952 U.S. National championship (first round loss to top seeded Seixas) does indeed make him WP notable for tennis - nomination withdrawn Mayumashu (talk) 22:46, 7 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 no consensus. This discussion attracted insufficient involvement to claim any type of consensus; no prejudice against renomination in the future. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Piser

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

Artist bio, edited principally by a close associate (see File:Thomas_a._bliss.jpg) and the subject himself. Subject does not appear to have received sufficient coverage in reliable, third-party sources to merit a standalone article; fails WP:ARTIST. Insufficient third-party coverage for a rewrite. -- Rrburke (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THE ARTICLE CONTAINS ONLY VERIFIABLE FACTS AND AS SUCH IS NOT SUBJECT TO DELETION. GIVEN THAT NO OPINIONS ARE EXPRESSED, THE FACT THAT I HAVE MET MR. PISER IS IRRELEVANT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Verifiability is of course essential. But what is also required is that the subject meet notability guidelines. I'm not seeing that here. Also, it is rude to shout in all caps. It does not make your point more clearly. Dloh cierekim 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid I don't find substantial coverage from reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:N or WP:Artist. The sources in the article are trivial and not sufficient to sustain a claim of notability. The relationship of subject to editors or article is not relevant to me. Dloh cierekim 03:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I disagree that Mr.Piser "does not meet WP:Artist." Following is from that page: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." In fact, Mr. Piser's Daily Palette is the first recorded use of a vending machine to vend art. See http://www.callithump.org/art_vending_history/index.html Sorry about the caps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs)

Saw that. It is not sufficient to meet the need for significant coverage. Dloh cierekim 13:39, 2 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) 00:02, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Palette

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

No evidence the subject has received sufficient coverage in reliable, third-party sources to merit a standalone article. Article created and principally edited by a close associate (see File:Thomas_a._bliss.jpg) and the project's creator himself. Insufficient third-party coverage to mount a neutral, non-COI rewrite. -- Rrburke (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate significant verifiable information from reliable 3rd party sources to support a claim to meeting notability guidelines. There is an unrelated "The Daily Palette" that also produces G-Hits. Dloh cierekim 03:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Please refer to footnotes; e.g., http://www.callithump.org/art_vending_history/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbliss558 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. While helpful, it does not represent significant coverage of sufficient depth and breadth. Dloh cierekim 13:38, 2 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) 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient reliable coverage to demonstrate notability.--Korruski^Talk 10:13, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Howell

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. She has never won an election nor held an office. Most of her article is about her repeated failures to get a tax cut passed. The rationale for keep in first nomination (back in 2005) ranged from no reasons whatsoever to one anonymous claim that "she was a major player in politics" (which is not supported by sources), another claiming that the tax initiative was notable (only for repeated failure), and one that 5000 GHits was good enough for notability (current searches past #10 start to hit her FB and Twitter, a YouTube spoof she did, etc. Obviously hit counts do not equal reliable and independent coverage). She therefore does not meet the local criterion either. MSJapan (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not as a politician, but as an activist and organizer who has a well-established reputation in Massachusetts. Take a look at Google News and Google Books, both of which show that she's received in-depth coverage for many years. Many Boston Globe stories (hidden behind pay walls, unfortunately), but the snippets visible indicate that the coverage has been substantial. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but meets WP:GNG. Although not a major political figure, she appears to receive a fair amount of coverage every two to four years in Massachusetts. In addition to the news and book hits, I found a Glenn Beck interview. Location (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no significant coverage (other than the Boston Globe editorial which talks about the other two candidates being awful as a reason to endorse her) and the other criteria aren't there either: Howell's runs for office were unsuccessful by large margins and the initiatives she helped with failed as well. The mention in the ballot initiative article is enough. Hekerui (talk) 00:33, 5 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) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Location. The subject has received coverage in numerous articles over the past few years as a Libertarian candidate and anti-tax activist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Location. She is evidently well-publicised in Massachusetts. It's not surprising when fringe candidates for office fail. Occuli (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328 and Location. Meets GNG. --JayJasper (talk) 19:06, 8 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razak Mohammed

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

fails WP:BIO. article poorly lacking sources. gnews comes up with another Razak Mohammed not this fashion designer one. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 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) 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor clothes designer. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 7 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HEXACO model of personality structure

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

Fractionally above original research. No evidence that this model has received any attention by the scientific community. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "No evidence that this model has received any attention by the scientific community" ignores the fact that the article does feature two references to academic publications. Gscholar suggests to me that there is sufficient attention being paid to this rather new model.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've struck through my statement above because I see that these Gscholar hits do appear to be articles by the theory's creators. Though published in (what appear to me to be) legitimate academic journals, I'm not seeing articles by others about this model, and that is at the crux of the nominator's rationale, I believe. The article was created by User:M C Ashton, the same name as one of the model's co-creators, and I've applied a COI tag accordingly. Moreover, the article was dePRODDED by anon IP from Brock University, where Prof. Ashton works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At WP:COS we see "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." Google Scholar for HEXACO model gives over 600 hits many relevant to this topic, which seems to establish notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is M. C. Ashton, the person who submitted the article. I submitted it under my own name, so that it would be clear that I was the author. (When I "deprodded" the article, I thought that my username would be visible, not knowing about the "four tildas", and I stated the reason for objecting to deletion.) I've tried to write the article in a neutral tone, but if there are segments that seem not to be neutral, please let me know and I can modify them. Regarding the references, I am an author on many of these, but they're published in peer-reviewed psychology journals. To see a list of HEXACO references, including about 20 by other authors (mostly 2008 or later), please see this page. Also, work related to this model has been cited several times in a widely used personality psychology textbook by Larsen and Buss, "Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature" (3rd ed) M C Ashton (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the comments above, I restore my oppose to deletion. Prof. Ashton has, it seems, made a reasonable effort to create this article in a transparent way and we do have a sufficient level of notability for the article subject. Any WP:COI issues that may exist can be addressed by other means. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've since removed the COI tag: I don't see anything in the article that is biased or non-neutral, and I for one have no desire to make any more of an issue over Prof. Ashton's good faith effort to create an article on a model that I do feel is notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in present form. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:50, 6 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) 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A new section now cites some scientific journal articles in which the HEXACO model of personality structure has been used. M C Ashton (talk) 17:16, 13 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kayah State Cultural Museum

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

Not sure that this museum has substantial notability. Sources in the article are lacking and my own digging around turned up little. Will happily withdraw if some sources are found. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a few references to the article. I feel that a language specific search has the possibility of raising more. Silver seren^C 19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible to see if anyone with the WikiProject related to Myanmar can provide sources? Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be somewhat notable and references have been found. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 08:20, 1 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) 00:00, 7 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Toluenes

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

Regionable band of questionable notability, possibly autobiographical/self-promotional. No real sourcing originally, although another editor has since added two regional news articles. No recent significant coverage in independent third-party publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources—the Charleston Daily Mail, The Herald-Dispatch, and The Independent were the ones I added—the subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1. I don't understand the nominator's concern about whether or not the coverage is "recent". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:56, 3 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) 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The text does have some promotional overtones that could be ameliorated, but there's sufficient evidence of notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:16, 8 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 03:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samarth singh

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources, WP:Conflict of interest by article's creator. Proposed deletion was removed without explanation by anonymous editor. Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable founder of a non notable company. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hybrid Content Inc. is hardly non-notable given the sales figures that have jumped almost 15 times over the last 4 years. And the amount of controversy the owner has kicked up when he was a journalist is hardly non-notable either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.133.21 (talk) — 114.79.133.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The article isn't about the company, it's about its founder, and being the head of a notable company doesn't necessarily make someone notable per WP:BIO. There are no WP:Secondary references cited about Singh or his company, and increases in sales revenue don't make a company notable per WP:COMPANY. There is almost zero coverage about either one online from WP:Reliable sources. Can you please provide some reliable cites showing why he's notable? Thanks, Invitrovanitas (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does not mention that he was a journalist, unless you are talking about Jam which is a college student mag and he was probably just a contributor. Doesn't count as journalism. And writing a mildly critical review of your college is hardly controversial. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:25, 8 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) 00:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LOLz.. Somebody please tell why this article should NOT be deleted! A self proclaimed "everything" isn't worth to be listed on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsisv (talk • contribs) 10:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely to become wiki noteworthy, but presently not enough WP:RS coverage for me to support. Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 10 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin Farahani

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

No references in the article. And the subject fails WP:ENT. I couldn't find any reliable source on him. Farhikht (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and there is not even an indication of notability. If this article was recent, I would say speedy delete. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as since the last !vote was made above 4 days ago, the article now has references,[29] and the individual meets WP:BIO through WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. While accepting in good faith that the nominator could not find sources, I had absolutely no trouble doing so using the provided Find sources above, including full length and in-depth English-language articles about the man and his work in such as Ha'aretz,[30] Ynetnews,[31] and Jewish Exponent.[32] If thse were so readily available, my thought is that there should also be Iranian-language sources to which I do not have access. And while not world-wide, the individual has received coverage and his work has received critical review. Notability to Judaism or Iran is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. It serves the project for this article to remian and be further improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources on article now are sufficient to establish notability under the GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. With all due respect to the sources, they do not establish notability per WP:CREATIVE. This filmmaker has made only one film. If the film is notable, perhaps a page should be made about that. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err... looking is always helpful, as there is an artcle about his film. Meeting WP:GNG, even if weakly, is better than CREATIVE in meeting WP:BIO. However, if someone can jump in plane, fly to Iran, and find the hardcopy Iranian language sources that have not made it to the west or online, that would go far toward improving this article. Not being in Iran, I had to settle for what I could find online. As the article is not a violation of WP:BLP or WP:NOT it improves the project to have it remain and be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:47, 7 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) 23:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per schmidt.Wm.Pittman (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found an article about subject each in the NY Times and in YTNews, and a book describing his works. That should be sufficient for notability. Linda Olive (talk) 16:51, 12 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Shakespeare in the Park

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

Utterly non-notable local theater group. Nothing personal, I've attended many productions, but this is strictly amateur hour. Wiki search reveals productions in Central Park in NYC that merit article before this one. Valfontis (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this organization merits an article. Note also that there is not much to say. The title kind of says it all (except for the location of the park, ~~which by an oversight is not given in the article~~ which I just added.)Steve Dufour (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 7 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.