Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 28

< 27 August	29 August >

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 WTF. An article never existed at the misspelled title of this AfD (with quotation marks in it), or the version of that title without the quotation marks.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 07:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Polz

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

Why keep this page just because it's Adolf Hitler's aunt? It's not even an article just a short sentance. --Frankonno (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be deleted. It is not even a "stub". Further, the info. is stated in other articles; the person is not noteworthy on her own. Kierzek (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 01:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuznetsov Nikolay Alexeyevich

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

Subject appears to fail criteria at WP:BIO. According to the article, the subject was a pilot for the Russian army, but there is nothing notable in the article that differentiates that subject from the hundreds of thousands of other members of the military. Article is mostly original research; no sources could be located about the subject (at least in English) and the article's two listed sources in Russian do not appear to be reliable, third-party sources. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for time being. np.kz is a reliable source as is vecher.kz, it's in the Russian language, and that doesn't prevent articles being based upon them. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain why those sources should not be considered reliable. They appear to be from publications with editorial control, rather than self-published sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were not the main issue. I don't read Russian, so I basically just said that they don't appear to be reliable, but if others disagree, then that's ok. However, for some reason, one of the two sources were deleted. It seems like mostly original research, as I doubt that all the information came from that one source. The main issue is that I don't see how the subject is notable as a person. Millions and millions of people have been in the military and obviously they don't all get articles. But from reading through this article, all I got was that this man grew up taking care of his family, became a pilot during WWII, then started a family of his own. Some of the prose doesn't even have anything to do with the subject. For example, the second paragraph of the "Career" section is more of a background about the war conflict and the pilots fighting at the time. Nothing of Kuznetsov is even mentioned except that "he had to face many problems and overcome bureaucratic hurdles" and that people worked "[u]nder Kuznetsov’s leadership". I just can't find any notability in the subject. If this would remain as an article, would anything even link here? Maybe the subject is notable in some way, but right now the article isn't showing me that. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to have been more or less pulled over from Russian WP. THE BEST SOURCE at Russkiipedia is a biographical portrait. The guy is wearing two Hero of Socialist Labor medals, so he was either one of Brezhnev's fishing buddies or a high-ranking figure in the Soviet military establishment. Sourcing is imperfect and this needs a major edit, to be sure. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find a second source for this bio? We obviously need more than just one. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2006 series)#Claire Madden. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Madden

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

An Australian woman whose fame mainly came through Big Brother. Probably doesn't meet the GNG. Raymie (t • c) 23:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect to Big Brother Australia 2006 (the relevant season), or merge to List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2006 series) (the contestant list). This person's notability is tied to her appearance on Big Brother 06, and her only post-BB 'claim to fame' appears to be working on a documentary[1] produced by a company involved with Big Brother. -- saberwyn 01:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Big Brother Australia housemates (2006 series)#Claire Madden because redirects are cheap and it is a plausible search term. I would say merge, but there's really not much to merge: this is the only RS in the article. Jenks24 (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; falls a bit short on notability and, as Jenks24 sagely suggested, there's not much to merge. bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator Sudo Ghost 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist legends about Emperor Wu of Liang

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

Declined PROD. Article has been completely unsourced for five years, and it would likely be better to include any sourced information that does pop up in the Emperor Wu of Liang article. Sudo Ghost 20:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fiver years old and still zero sources. For starters, no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, then delete Any info that we can source, from say here, should just be merged into the existing Emperor Wu of Liang article. After that delete. The Emperor's article isn't long enough at present to justify a section split. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. —Madalibi (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it appears to have enough useful info that it can be merged in to Emperor Wu of Liang article provided that such can be adequately sourced. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - merge and delete are not compatible suggestions. If content is merged into another article, then this one should become a redirect to the target article; it should not be deleted. LadyofShalott 01:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case though, there is nothing to merge. The entire article is unsourced. - Sudo Ghost 02:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not as simple as it seems. I agree that the article is verbose and completely unsourced, but such legends exist and they are central to the history of Buddhism in China. Let me try to abridge the whole thing and find a few reliable sources to prove notability. Then we can judge if we have enough material for an independent page or if have just enough to write a new sub-section in Emperor Wu of Liang.
Keep. I've thoroughly rewritten the lead and two of the four sections, trying to find references for every claim and deleting all the fluff that couldn't be sourced. There's still a lot to improve upon, but the many scholarly sources I found should be enough to prove notability for now. I think this topic should ideally be part of a broader wiki on Emperor Wu's policies toward Buddhism (there would be tons of sources on that), but the article under discussion, though still flawed, now seems too well referenced to be deleted. Madalibi (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's been a lot done to the article since I went to sleep. I'll withdraw the nomination for deletion. - Sudo Ghost 19:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Hodnett

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

Country singer. Claims to have won a platinum award but provides no evidence thereof indeed no independent references for anything. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V. Though I rejected A7 on the basis of the claims made, a simple review at http://www.billboard.com/#/search/Lucky+Hodnett seems convincing. Fæ (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 06:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; falls short of the GNG and the content is a bit of a mess. bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. 8-2 Arsenal F.C.

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

Article about an football match failing to show any notability which goes beyond routine coverage. Article is also completely unsourced, thus failing WP:V. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual matches have to very notable to deserve an article and this one ain't that notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be important to the two clubs involved, but it's pretty irrelevant to the rest of us. No evidence of any wider notability. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of goals does not equal notability. Giant Snowman 22:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this particular fixture match is notable beyond routine coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is not really important right now and should be deleted. -- Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In fairness to the creator of the article I think this was created in good faith based on misreporting in the media that it was Arsenal's heaviest defeat since 1896. Clearly now that's been disproved and there are no grounds for notability, none of Arsenal's defeats by a seven goal margin merit an article so clearly a six goal margin doesn't have a chance.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of lasting notability. No records were set and it wasn't a cup final, so no automatic notability there. We won't know the lasting impact of this game for at least a few months. – Pee Jay 23:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It has been concluded already that these football matches on a single page have no warrant to exist. Only major football finals warrant a page in my view. I created some match pages on some games which were considered the "greatest FA Cup comebacks ever" but it was decided that they don't warrant there own page. I don't see this page as any different, so delete ASAP. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a major football event.--Xyz or die (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable match. No records were broken and it wasn't a cup final, it was just one team getting beaten comprehensively by another. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although a United fan (and a extremely happy on at that!), as far as Wikipedia is concerned, this game isn't notable. 86.181.134.76 (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable football match. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incredible scoreline but not of adequate notability to warrant an article. Deserter1 talk 11:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably created because of some misunderstanding/misrepresentation in the media. This was not Arsenal's heaviest defeat since 1896. It was the first time they had conceded 8 goals in a match since 1896, but the defeat itself was by a 6-goal margin, which I'm sure has happened before since then. I'm a United fan but even so, I have to agree with deletion. The only thing notable about this match was the scoreline, which in itself does not warrant it's own article. Especially since it wasn't a final. It was a normal league game with, in my opinion, a minimal influence on the season to come. Reddev87 (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ManU games aren't notable. Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's clearly not true. United have played in a great many notable matches. – Pee Jay 15:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another United fan willing to admit that this is not a notable match as no records were broken and it was not a cup final. Maybe when they play at Emirates next year? :P Delusion23 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ke... just joking Delete no records were broken, just a few French hearts and it was not a cup final. Adam4267 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm a Chelsea fan, and its good to see Arsenal lose, on my telly, that is, not on Wikipedia. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With all due respect to Protonk's view, the last 2 !voter's argument about the subject not passing WP:GNG carry the day and the fact that it's a poorly sourced BLP is relevant. If someone finds sources not mentioned here I'll be happy to userfy or incubate this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Aranoff

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

WP:REFUND'ed PROD, however the original reason No significant coverage able to be found in independent reliable sources still applies so fails WP:GNG and is still unsourced. Mt king ^(edits) 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to explain why the subject is notable among architects and it's an unreferenced WP:BLP. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't have to explain why the subject is notable among architects. The subject must meet our notability guideline. The use of the word notable is an unfortunate choice and does not reflect the general notability guideline in the slightest. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. I should have said important or significant. Pburka (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you shouldn't have. That's just the point. There is nothing in the GNG about importance or significance. Wikipedia is host to thousands of great articles on relatively unimportant subjects. Take, for instance, Fast inverse square root. The subject is almost completely unimportant. It may be significant to a small group of people but in the grand scheme of things it is a few lines of code inside a 3d engine released more than a decade ago. We have an article on it because it is the subject of multiple reliable sources all which cover it in significant detail. That is the operative threshold. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps you could explain, then, why WP:CSD#A7 includes the term important or significant? Pburka (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well part of my explanation is an admission that I'm not at all happy w/ the language in A7. It sets a perversely high bar. However it is a necessary (in some respects) kludge. Plenty of articles are created about bands, themselves, small companies where "importance" is a decent heuristic for a NPP or admin who is working through hundreds of articles per week. I would prefer we didn't have it, as the baseline threshold for inclusion should be "does the subject have enough sourcing that we can meet NPOV, V and NOR." The three core content policies (should) drive the bus. 04:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment in Wikipedia:REFUND#Alan_Aranoff by IP, "Here is some [sources]: Progressive Architecture April 1993, The Making of Public Buildings; Book, The Supreme Court Building - Jerusalem, 1993 Yad Hanadiv; Alan Aranoff was the architect for the KSYM Synagogue, Modiin, Israel, 2011; Alan Steven Aranoff designed and authored Ichud Hayeshivot: Seminary and Housing, UCLA Architecture thesis/dissertation, Melvyl 1984, A New Brooklyn Museum: The Master Plan Competition, with Kohn Pedersen Fox, Rizzoli, 1988; designed The Be'er Sheva regional courts building with Barchana Architects; architectural design of the new home of the Israel Ice Hockey Federation." Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to explain why the subject is notable among architects and it's an unreferenced WP:BLP. Quick online search returned no evidence of notability. The list of given sources are not cited in the article and it is not clear whether they include any in depth coverage of this person. Marokwitz (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no coverage of him except this man-on-the-street type quote at Google News, and this and this passing mentions in books. --MelanieN (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems relatively clear, taking into account uneasiness over the sources. Ironholds (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kanu

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

Blatantly self-promotional article on a Nigerian political figure who might just be barely notable but quite likely isn't. No independent sources are presented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Amsaim Miguel AG^(talk) 09:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The source looks legitimate. Miguel AG^(talk) 23:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

check source http://saharareporters.com/news-page/abacha%E2%80%99s-man-leads-jonathan%E2%80%99s-campaign-us-pm-news-lagos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocherome (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There do appear to be some 2nd rate RS on this guy out there, but I'm having difficulty coming up with even one really credible RS. NickCT (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

independent sources Do a simple google search or read these articles read search for Daniel Kanu http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/spyglass/78144/ http://newsdiaryonline.com/fooling_the_president.htm http://weekly.dailytrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5209:nasarawa-state-never-had-take-off-grant-at-creation&catid=7:inside-politics&Itemid=112 http://www.independentngonline.com/DailyIndependent/Article.aspx?id=28397&print=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocherome (talk • contribs) 01:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG, WP:RS & WP:POLITICIAN - the so-called "independent sources" presented in this Afd merely give the subject of the BLP article a passing mention and does not discuss the subject in detail, which is not enough to establish notability. It appears as if this article was written for promotional purposes. Amsaim (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article met notability One or two of the articles showed his records, We all here in Nigeria know him @ age 30 he organized 2 million man march (biggest rally ever in NIgeria), which is still talked about till date. of course someone will have to put him on wiki as ocherome did. --Georgemma 18:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Georgemma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note - I'm gussing Georgemma is a sock. NickCT (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NickCT. It strongly appears as if Georgemma is a sock. Amsaim (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree--I think it's just an SPA, and there's likely off-wiki recruiting going on....that being said...:

Keep As someone mentioned above, run a google news search for Daniel Kanu YEAA (this helps separate out other Daniel Kanu's). I'm seeing a lot of discussion of him and YEAA on Allafrica.org, which is an African news aggregator. Unfortunately, the site requires a subscription, and thus I can't actually read the news stories. Nonetheless, given what appears to be a large amount of coverage, it appears that Kanu is notable, even if we can't at the moment access it. One thing that I don't think the supporters are going to like is that if we can ever get access to the sources, what I can read seems to imply that Kanu is more memorable for his failures (wrt YEAA) than his successes. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of deleting this when there clearly appear to be sources, even though we can't actually access them. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - one article in Allafrica.com does not give a person automatic notability. The subject of the BLP article, when he's being mentioned in a source, merely receives a passing mention (e.g. "Daniel Kanu from YEAA says...."). That's not enough to write BLP article in Wikipedia about that person. The criteria for notability for people are very clear. Amongst others it is required that "...the depth of coverage in any given source must be substantial...", and that "...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability...". Furthermore, WP:GNG goes on to explain that "..."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail...". The few so-called independent sources provided in this Afd do not address the subject in detail. If there are reliable sources to establish notability for Kanu, then those who want to keep this article should please provide them. Stating that "...we can't actually access them..." is not a valid excuse, because if this excuse should make the day, then there'd be hundreds of non-notable BLP articles which could be created based on this excuse. Either there are reliable sources which establish Kanu's notability, or there are none. Presently, there are none. Amsaim (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one article: I count nearly 40. This is not a case where there are no sources, its a case where there clearly are sources, some of which appear to discuss the subject in significant depth. In other words, it looks like there are reliable sources that discuss his notability. Because I'm honest, I won't add those sources unless I can see the articles, but I or someone else conceivably could add "information" from those articles, give them as a source, and they would be sufficient per WP:PAYWALL. Obviously, yes, I don't know for certain that he is notable, but it seems unlikely that with 40 newspaper articles minimum mentioning him that he isn't notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Qwyrxian I would never try to violate wikis policies, i was able to go through some of the sources, am a Nigeria and i witnessed his YEAA.

Here are the RS http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,NGA,,3ae6ac1e34,0.html http://allafrica.com/stories/200807280655.html http://allafrica.com/stories/200112030428.html http://www.gidilounge.com/?p=19100 http://business.highbeam.com/3548/article-1G1-80502449/nma-asks-court-jail-daniel-kanu http://newsdiaryonline.com/fooling_the_president.htm

"...Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocherome (talk • contribs) 21:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC) The list is endless. Ocherome (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmm...actually, those refs make me start to sway in the other direction. The UNHCR report is one of the best to look at, and shows the possible problem. For the most part, that report is not about Kanu; rather, it's about YEAA, and it quotes Kanu or mentions that he is the leader. In other words, that government publication might help prove that YEAA is a notable organization, but not Kanu. I can't see the allafrica articles, because only subscribers can see them. However, the first is definitely not showing his notability, since it's an interview of Kanu, not about him. The second one might be useful; if you can explain in more detail exactly what it says about Kanu, or provide us with a copy, that might help. Gidilounge is a blog, and thus not a reliable source; the NewsDiary article is just a copy of it. The Highbeam article appears to be a copy of the second AllAfrica article, and thus isn't a second source; unfortunately it's also subscription only, so I can't see it. If you could someone get me a copy of that article, I'll take a look at it and see if it can be added; alternatively, you can add information about it to the Daniel Kanu article yourself. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very weak Keep there are sufficient sources, though I am not sure I consider them truly independent, in the sense of being free from the influence of PR. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems there are two apparently independent sources, which have very similar content. If he really did lead a million man march, I'd have expected significantly more coverage. Raised in the US implies he speaks English, so I'd have expected some interviews with independent English-language sources, or something... Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supplimental sources saying the content was culled from facebook also makes me very dubious. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ripples (video game)

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Only sources provided are Apple Store entry and SakeVisual's Facebook page, neither of which are third-party sources. This game also has a GameFAQs page, but with little more information than the release date. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 20:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did a quick search on the game, err.. visual novel, and it looks notable enough, considering it has a GameFAQs page. I'm quite neutral on this since it looks both notable enough but there really isn't much information about the game so far, so I'm quite unsure how to handle this page. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official webpage says:

Playing Time: ~10 min

Release Date: 06-10-2010

Price: Free

So its been out for more than a year, as a free game that you finish playing in 10 minutes. No reviews anywhere. Cnet says its been downloaded 40 times in the past year from their download.com site. [2] Dream Focus 10:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see how the existence of a [GameFAQ page helps to establish notability, especially as there are no posts on the page. Even if there were posts, they are contributed by the public and cannot be considered reliable in the Wikipedia sense. Spinning Spark 11:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gamefaqs page doesn't establish notability, doesn't seem to have much/any third party coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SakeVisual's article (and the relevant section within). The closest I came to finding any kind of source for the game is this, which is just a basic plot outline. SakeVisual's output seems to be on the cusp of wider recognition from both the video game and anime/manga fraternities so having a table of visual novels there with plot details, year of release etc. would leave room for expansion. Someone another 14:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good find! Anime Expo is a reliable source, and its not just giving it brief coverage but putting it on a list of great games. 7 Essential iPhone Apps for Anime Lovers by Jason Young, Staff Editor, Inside AX- Anime Expo. I didn't think much of this before, but now, I'd say that definitely proves it notable enough to be kept. Dream Focus 16:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Gamertell calls it a high quality game. "Anyone who sampled Sakevisual’s free games RE: Alistair++ and Ripples would know the company creates high quality games," Dream Focus 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ripples is a classic visual novel and was also translated into Slovak, French and Russian, proving its wide-spread fan base.[4] NoJoker 15:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims of notability need to be in the article, not the AfD deletion page. Feel free to ping my talk page if claims of notability with independent references get added. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. You either agree sources and reasoning found prove its notable, or you don't. It doesn't have to be in the article as proof. And AFD is not a vote, so if you don't make a valid argument you are ignored. Dream Focus 10:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point Project Management

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

Promo article, non-notable company. Nothing in Google News. Some coverage on the web (probably enough to decline speedy, which is why I'm filing this AfD), but not enough to satisfy GNG. Miracle Pen (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant WP:ADVERT. created by single purpose editor.LibStar (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:ADVERT. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It can be difficult to objectively describe a business' activities without it being considered an advert by some, but I think this one is a genuine case. The organisation falls a little short on notability anyway. bobrayner (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Eleven

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

This 2010 movie (IMDb entry) has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I cannot find any reviews of the movie nor any news articles about it. A Google News Archive search for "Summer Eleven" "Kell" (Kell is the last name of the director) retrieves two passing mentions from the Chinese publication Xinhuanet.com. Summer Eleven fails GNG. Goodvac (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment considering the article had existed for less than an hour when this went up, we may want to give it a bit of a chance to be wikied. As for not being able to find "any" reviews, here's one I found as the very first entry from clicking the link above (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). This is where it shows up with a summary from Rotten Tomatoes. Just saying. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I should have been clearer—movie reviews from reliable sources. The four reviews from Common Sense Media are from users including parents and an 11-year-old kid. This source is definitely not reliable and thus does not establish notability.
  The Rotten Tomatoes source is also insufficient in establishing notability, as a summary duplicated on many movie sites does not constitute significant coverage. Goodvac (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't say they were enough. Simply pointing out info found within 3 first clicks combined with the short time in existence of the article before being nominated. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did thorough research in an attempt to find reliable sources for this movie. I found the same links you did and recognized that they either were unreliable or did not constitute significant coverage, but I failed to foresee that someone would characterize them as indications of notability.
      Whether an article asserts notability in its current form is not the concern of AfD. AfD seeks to determine if there are enough sources to establish notability through the GNG. Goodvac (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read above- no one said these were reliable or would constitute the "indication" of notability. Was simply info put out to make for a more thorough discussion. Rotten Tomatoes is an oft cited site throughout Wiki so I believed this would be a decent starting point. As far as assertion and establishing we also don't have to judge "current form" based upon 45-50 minutes. We don't often consider an article needing to be at peak within its first hour. However I have not added a Keep vote yet so I am not saying either is correct yet. That is all. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I have not said that an article must be perfect immediately after creation. We are considering notability (based on sources), not the article quality.
        Okay. Thank you for your contributions to this discussion—two links that in terms of film notability count for nothing. Goodvac (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look notable at all RomeEonBmbo (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has no references and doesn't appear at all notable. It has not been written in the style of the encyclopaedia. I think it is not notable per Wikipedia:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability RDN1F (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NF. When addressable through normal editing,[5] article format and style are never a valid reason for deletion. I note that this effort by an inexperienced new editor[6] lasted six minutes before being flagged for its multiple issues,[7] and another 34 minutes before being nominated for deletion.[8] Though it might appear as hurried to some, the templates and AFD were decent calls. This said, I made a special point to drop a note on the newcomer's talk page urging them to read WP:PRIMER before attempting another article. If they return to Wikiedia, their next efforts might fare better than did this one. And to User:Pudge MclameO, I share your concerns that this may have seemed hurried, but after having myself done searches and making edits to at least improve the article's appearance, I have to agree that this one, fresh ink or no, does not have what it takes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julia O'Connor (actress)

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

Recreated after being prodded. Actress with just a single credited role; fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no evidence of multiple significant roles, no awards, no 3rd party references etc. Tassedethe (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One minor role in one series certainly fails WP:ENTERTAINER, which requires significant roles in multiple works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MGP Nitro

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

A make of scooter. No evidence that it exists, still less that it is notable. Disputed prod. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any reliable coverage of the scooter, though it does appear to be a popular item. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any Reliable Source coverage of the scooter - nothing but blogs, youtube etc. Article appears to be Original Research, i.e., the writer's own experience and opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Odie5533 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperdrive (video game)

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

I could not find a single reference offering significant coverage of this Arcade machine. Odie5533 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. It also fails WP:GNG. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not ready to set this precedent of deleting arcade games by notable companies such as Midway Games. The game isn't some fictitious hoax, and as much as I know some want to delete almost every single video game article in existence (especially ones from the 1980s and 1990s since it's more difficult to find sources), it's not starting here. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look, a single reference offering significant coverage of this Arcade machine. GamePro #115, April 1998, page 64. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great print reference, good hunting. But I still think it's not enough media coverage to warrant a full article. Perhaps inclusion in List of Midway arcade machines with details and references for the arcades would be good. For the record, I love creating and expanding video game articles from the 80's and 90's, but some are simply not notable enough for to warrant a full article on Wikipedia. I realize this arcade is not a hoax, I saw pictures and some available for purchase on eBay and some arcade trader site while I was researching the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide scans, but it also had a full preview in Electronic Gaming Monthly's Player's Guide to Summer Gaming 1998, as well as 4 entire pages of coverage in EGM². That's more than enough coverage. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least give us a citation to these references you say exist? --Odie5533 (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come the hell on. Now you're saying that I'm making references up? I'm going by what I found on the official page for the game, as well as an artist's resume, two different places that both cite a four page strategy guide in EGM2, the preview in Electronic Gaming Monthly, and the preview in Gamepro. I've already gone above and beyond to find one source and upload the scan. I have no reason to believe the other two were just made up out of thin air. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 13:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game Informer, Gamefan, Gamespot, Replay Magazine, Next Generation Magazine, Since I'm doing all the research for you, could you please incorporate these into the article? Seems like the article can be expanded quite a lot, now. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 13:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Midway's Hyperdrive". Game Informer. 29 April 1998. Archived from the original on 18 February 1999. Retrieved 31 August 2011.
"Preview: HyperDrive". GameFan Online. 4 May 1998. Archived from the original on 21 February 1999. Retrieved 31 August 2011.
Mark Hain (25 February 1998). "Hyperdrive Races to Arcades". GameSpot. Retrieved 31 August 2011. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
"Spotlight: Fast In Space!". RePlay Magazine. May 1998. Archived from the original on 11 June 1998. Retrieved 31 August 2011.
"ASI: Day One Arcade Show Report". Next Generation Online. 26 March 1998. Archived from the original on 20 August 1999. Retrieved 31 August 2011.

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Ceballos

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

Clear failure of WP:NFOOTY, never played a professional game; no substantial 3rd party references that would pass the WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation after he plays a game. Tassedethe (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. never played pro football, fails nfooty. Szzuk (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 22:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Should he play a game, he would be notable under WP:NSPORT. Currently he fails that criteria, and WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be kept as he is playing for a professional club and will soon be getting a first appearanceaccording to tottenham's technical director Tim Sherwood BulgarianBoy (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played at a fully-professiona level yet. Fails WP:GNG to a lack of significant media coverage. Recreate if and when he makes his debut for Spurs. --Jimbo^[online] 22:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Normally I may have gone for a relist, but since the primary point of contention here is lasting notability it seems like a good idea to just close this and re-visit the issue later when the lasting impact of this event will be more clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Svalbard Polar Bear Attack

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

Fails WP:NEWSEVENT; while there was a spur of news hits about the attack immediately afterwards, there is no coverage beyond a few days, per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Polar bear attacks are common in Svalbard and there is nothing warranting an article about this particular one. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even at this moment this is still getting continued coverage on international news sites. The event is also notable in the reviews and knock on effect it is having on such expeditions.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/World/2011/08/28/Bear_attack_survivor_relives_ordeal_655172.html is just one example

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event appears to be just routine coverage and does not appear to have any lasting significance. If at some point in the future the event is determined to have lasting significance I could see re-creating the article, but such significance either does not exist or has not been noted in the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is false as there is current and continuing coverage such as this. Warden (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News. Tragic for sure, but can't have a lasting impact. Szzuk (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course - what a daft nomination Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 19:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the nomination is not entirely correct, but the article should be deleted nonetheless as it does not have lasting impact. Or do you believe it does? --Odie5533 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sad, but no need for a page here. DoDo Bird Brain (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like a news article more than anything else. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a sentence or two into Polar bear#behavior, which mentions fatal polar bear attacks. Per WP:NOTNEWS, a stand-alone article is not appropriate. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has lasting effects because there are policy changes to prevent it from happening again. Dream Focus 02:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Polar bear#behavior as per Reyk. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Either merge or generalize title / content to cover polar bear attacks more broadly, including prevention policies (as is started within the article).FeatherPluma (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AMF File Format Element reference

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

This topic is already covered in depth at Additive Manufacturing File Format. Wikipedia is not a reference manual or a how-to guide so this article is unnecessary and redundant. Furthermore the excessive use of HTML formatting leads me to believe that it has been copy/pasted from elsewhere. Biker Biker (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the core of this issue is the statement 'perfectly describes the file format'. From a lay person point of view I'm sure you are correct. From an implementors perspective the article is actually quite sloppy. It serves (and rightly so) to provide a high level overview of what the format is about and at a basic level how it works. From an implementors perspective this is simply inadequate. There are numerous questions/details that the article does not provide information on. The reason for the additional page is to fill in those details.Brettsutton (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, Wikipedia is not a how to guide, which is what you are writing. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is a reference manual and does not belong in wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with reference manual interpretation. I believe the subtext here is AMF is not freely available, and the intent is to publish a free version of the specification. WP is not the appropriate place to publish such detail. Glrx (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Also WP:SNOW. -- samj _in ^out 07:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aixism

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

Declined speedy. An edited copy of Fascism. Appears to be a hoax. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus is that cleanup, not deletion, is required here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dotti

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

Does not cite any references and is already mentioned in the Just Jeans/Group page. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete I could only find some basic news coverage of the brand: [9] Odie5533 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to change my vote to keep. I found a bunch more reliable sources: news.com.au archfashion.com ragtrade.com.au theage.com.au nzherald.co.nz digital-media.net.au dailygloss.com shoptilyoudrop.com.au dailytelegraph.com.au --Odie5533 (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty big fashion label for teenage girls here in Australia (and NZ, apparently). Article is in terrible shape, but needs clean up, not deletion. Meets GNG, as shown by the links from Odie. Jenks24 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted under CSD Criteria A2 by admin RHaworth. (Non-admin close) Monty ₈₄₅ 23:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habiganj Govt High School

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

Has been listed at WP:PNT for more than two weeks without any progress in translation, creator removed prod without comment Jac16888 ^Talk 10:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Andreas ^(T) 13:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-English entry in English Wikipedia. Userfy if the creator desires. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy*. Is here: http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%97%E0%A6%9E%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9C_%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF_%E0%A6%89%E0%A6%9A%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%9A_%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%BC Szzuk (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does look much the same to me. Interesting that this enwiki version came before the Bangle one. I can't see the dates affecting the application of A2. Peridon (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion per Szzuk and Peridon, see bn:হবিগঞ্জ সরকারি উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়. Looks like the Bangla version was erroneously posted over here and then copied to bn.wiki. De728631 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, why did you decline the speedy delete if you think that's what should happen?--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have a regular deletion discussion here which overrides anything else until there is consensus. Whether it is speedily deleted is no longer decided on the article's main page by a quick look. De728631 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in cases where an article up for afd is speedy deleted the way it works is usually that one of the editors advocating it adds the speedy tag, then an admin is more likely to come across the article, of course they will check the afd and see if there is consensus for it, and then delete it if they wish--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A2. The CSD criterion mentions nothing about the foreign-wiki article having to be older than the one we have here. The end result of deleting the article here would merely be the same as that of a transwiki, which is, for practical purposes, a done deal now. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense article. Keb25 (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3571 (number)

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

Non-notable integer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (and merged). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1387 (number)

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

Non-notable integer, per my previous {{Prod}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every number is notable, by the well-ordering principle. (Otherwise, there would be a smallest number that is not notable: Being the smallest non-notable number would make the number notable.) Therefore, Wikipedia must have an article on each number. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mad monk 10k

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

Delete. Non-notable race, fails WP:EVENT. WWGB (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild thing 10k

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:RECENTISM, WP:EVENT, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:COI. BusterD (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a historical, annual event, there are many similar articles on wiki Tough Guy Competition Spartan race Canadian Death Race — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaa-adventure (talk • contribs) 09:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been completely re-written in consideration of the above notes — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamiB1977 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— SamiB1977 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a local race. Szzuk (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable event, no coverage in reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warpigs (band)

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

Non-notable band. Wahwahpedal (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The discography includes at least two albums on a major label, Polygram, so the band passes WP:BAND. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete. What's the proof that they released two albums on Polygram? I cannot see any sources for that, so it's just a blank claim. If you're basing your keep vote on something that's not sourced, then the vote should be delete.--Huh direction (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched "Warpigs" + "Polygram" and found nothing that wasn't a WP mirror. Also found nothing when searching "Warpigs" + the album names or "Warpigs" + the band members' names. I couldn't find an official site, a MySpace, anything, just torrents and clips of their songs on YouTube. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warpigs there's easily enough there to make them notable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The length of a Wiki article on another Wikipedia means nothing. Don't be stupid. You know damn well articles don't fly without sources, and I see NOTHING. The Hungarian article is just as bare bones and unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we knocked out every band that doesn't have a sourced discography I don't think there'd be many left. Hungarian sources are not easy to come by. Here's a remix on Universal. Allmusic lists several records. What I think can be taken on good faith is that the band had longevity and several albums released via major labels. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one of them being on Polygram, and have been completely unable to verify that it was released on Polygram as searching for the album name + Polygram gives me nothing but WP mirrors. English Allmusic screws up label names all the time, so I would say the Hungarian one does too. And you're still dodging the issue of sources. Why the hell can't you accept that there ARE no secondary sources? No sources, no article. WP:BAND only says that an artist may be notable if they have multiple major label albums — MAY and WILL are not the same damn word. Learn your English, okay?!? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: After discounting the "delete" opinion that contains personal attacks, additional discussion is needed to arrive at a consensus. Sandstein 06:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources not found.--Xyz or die (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DigitalMedia

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

spammy article on a subject that lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources. Truthsort (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on Google and Yahoo that would be fit for an encyclopedia.SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Content is commercial but not spammy (is there a definition of "spammy" somewhere). The following links establish notability of the topic - http://www.systemscontractor.com/article/58204.aspx, http://www.systemscontractor.com/blog/33020.aspx, http://hiddenwires.co.uk/resourcesarticles2011/articles20110704-01.html. Please read PROD discussion at Talk:DigitalMedia before voting. --Kvng (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The there are some primary source concerns with those links. The first link is a reprint of a company written press release, the hiddenwires.co.uk article was written by the company . The 2nd link looks to have been written by a writer for a New Bay media industry magazine so it's a reasonable reference but with just a single reference I'm still not seeing the kind of significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources WP:GNG and WP:CORP require.--RadioFan (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about an organization so I don't think WP:CORP applies. There are multiple whole articles from secondary sources about DigitalMedia. Maybe some are just regurgitated press releases but still I think were above the WP:GNG bar. Sorry if things are a bit sketchy but, really, the article is less than a month old. --Kvng (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the solution here is userification so that the possible references you mention can be sorted through and those which are truly independent and reliable can be used to improve the article. Once that is complete, the article can be moved back into production space. Kvng you seem passionate about this article, would you like to undertake that? I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination and move the article under your userid.--RadioFan (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is valid to have this article in mainspace. I believe the AfD is unwarranted and would prefer to let it run it's course. --Kvng (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete Crestron Electronics is the company that uses this trade name for one of its products~~, until more independent coverage of this technology emerges.~~ That article also needs cleanup, but the company appears notable. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 12:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC) The Crestron article after cleanup is skeletal, and no notable coverage on any of its individual products, including this one, seems available. Changing my vote in response to concerns cited by Kvng. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 04:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge to the parent article on the company seems like a reasonable solution here.--RadioFan (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With the current skeletal state of Crestron Electronics article, a merge would seem to create an WP:UNDUE problem there. --Kvng (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merged into a products section in the manufacturer's article, I'm not seeing an WP:UNDUE problem --RadioFan (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry I did not fully explain. There are currently no other products listed in Crestron Electronics. Merging would make DigitalMedia look like their most important (only?) product and that's not the case. Media distribution is a relatively recent endeavour. Crestron's main business is in home and commercial automation - controller CPUs, touchscreens and such. --Kvng (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you are right, and I withdraw my suggestion. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 04:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Eager

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

Delete. Non-notable person.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the sources he seems to be important enough to be considered notable.Borock (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But according to WP:ANYBIO he is not notable enough for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think he passes WP:PROF (the most likely criterion is #C7, impact outside academia in his academic capacity, but we'd need sources documenting the actual impact he has made) nor WP:GNG. The sources are a mixture of self-published ones (e.g. his university web sites) and reliable news articles that are not actually about him, but mention him in passing or quote him. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for his role as a regulator. David E and I usually agree about academics; this is one of the borderline cases where we sometimes do not. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete borderline article, possible WP:COI on part of creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC; Google scholar finds very few articles with very few cites, and he is only an associate professor at UTS.[10] Fails WP:BIO; I could not find anything at all about him at Google News Archive. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Boucetta but the consensus here is that Techyv does not yet meet WP:WEB. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Techyv

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

Non-notable website. PROD was contested by the author without comment. Borderline A7, I would support a speedy if there is consensus for it here. VQuakr (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Information in lead suggests it is not a notable website (ex. alexa ranking > 100,000) MadCow257 (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote in the first place invalid references. Would you please recheck the references. Boucetta (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Boucetta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I had another look at the links in the article, and none of them are secondary sources that go beyond a trivial listing of the web site. VQuakr (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the neatstat.com also a non reliable reference ? Boucetta (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added new references. You are invited to check their reliability. Boucetta (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and nuke from orbit to be sure. No indications of notability, references do not establish notability, pure advertising/promotional fluff. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement lacking WP:RS to satisfy WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 71.166.154.41 (talk · contribs) _{17:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Strong delete, no prejudice to speedy A7 or possibly G11. No notability whatsoever, no third-party coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry. I don't understand how do you consider this article "purely" advertising. I would prefer more explicit arguments.

Concerning notability, I've changed the references. Are you sure you have checked their reliability ? And does that mean that every valid article in wikipedia database has good references that meets this encyclopedia standards. Thanks. Boucetta (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in that there are many articles on Wikipedia which do not meet the sourcing or notability guidelines. However, where these are noticed by established editors, we try to improve them or, if they are simply not about notable subjects, delete them. With regard to this particular article: the website is not a source which will establish its own notability; likewise, websites like alexa or siteinformer that aggregate information about websites automatically without some kind of entry barrier which is meaningful to our notability guideline for web content are not useful for establishing notability. Prlog, as far as I can see, is a place for press releases to be distributed; the article in question looks to be self-published and as such is not useful either, at least for notability purposes. While all these are adequate to back up a particular point, the subject as a whole must be shown to be notable by use of reliable sources. sonia♫ 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of those "references" meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources (did you read and understand WP:General notability guideline?) … self-published sources, e.g., the subject's own website, are particularly unreliable … Alexa rankings are meaningless in this context, as are press releases (www.prlog.org is not notable enough to have its own article, nor is Website Informer) … and yes, if an article lacks references that meet Wikipedia standards, then it is deleted. — 71.166.154.41 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not for commercial nor advertising purposes, is it necessary to have reliable references talking about it ? I understand Wikipedia standards about notability and I believe that those standards are very important to keep Wikipedia an excellent encyclopedia. But what if the article's subject is newly born or created, will it have reliable sources talking about it ? Sometimes no, Internet may be a huge network but it's not the all-of-knowledge network. This time it lacks sources talking about this technical site that help thousands of internet users to resolve their software/hardware issues, and that can be verified by simply visiting the website of this subject. What shall I do ?

I invite you to humanize a bit your method to check the article's notability. I'll be grateful. Thanks Boucetta (talk) 01:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the subject is new, we wait until it has sources before we make an article. Otherwise, the net effect would in fact be promotional. No prejudice about an article when there are sources to support it, but when there are, routine description of site features found in al l similar sites is not encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Summarily deleted, before this discussion was allowed to run its normal course. A write-up about an incident of the kind alleged here has to be stripped of speculation and hearsay, and the facts would have to be far more solidly sourced. And the resulting article, if it could meet other relevant criteria, would have to be titled for, and about, the event and not any one person. Hoary (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric D Angell

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

Extreme BLP violation accusing a person of committing a heinous crime with no reliable sourcing. My db tag was removed. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the moment. I removed the speedy delete tag. The Huffington Post has picked up on it, which leads me to suspect that other news outlets may follow, and it's moved beyond the (reliable but not generally considered RS) blogs where it started. Definitely should not be speedily deleted; it's a developing story, and I'm still cleaning it up (though I expect to lose power shortly due to impending hurricane). Give me and other editors a few days to get it all prettified and formatted, get power back, and to see how it plays out in the media. If it does get deleted, I request that a copy be put in my userspace at User:Pi.1415926535/Eric D Angell. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not accuse him of rape. Mr. Angell has made himself a public figure in the discussion of what it means to rape and what constitutes consent. The article on him reflects that. I wrote about his being an on-the-rise viral video star because he "appeared to be" confessing to what "may have been" date rape and sparked online debate on what constitutes rape and the definition of consent. I posted the link to the actual video footage from the event in my first draft and have added more links from reputable sources: Jezebel and Huffington Post. Flamingnerd (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to read WP:BLP1E. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I repeat: put it in my userspace. I believe it's going to be notable if not now then soon, so I believe it's policy to allow me to have a temporary copy there for working on bringing it up to article quality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have BLP violations in your User space. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read it. :/ I'm obviously a newb here, but I do believe that Angell is a very notable person and will become more so. I think that this documentation is an important part of the discussion on rape culture. Which lead me to include a link to Eric D Angell in rape culture earlier today as another in its list of notable events. Flamingnerd (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When he becomes notable, then you can do that. Right now he isn't notable. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's open for debate. Anyhow, how does any viral video star have a Wikipedia entry if people known for one notable event are banned from having entries on them? Flamingnerd (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. That's the point. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Black Juan Mann Antoine Dodson Ted Williams... it doesn't make sense to intentionally exclude viral video stars from wikipedia as a general rule. They are notable people. Flamingnerd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

@TMotB: I did not know that. Will copy into a textfile and edit in the sandbox (never hitting submit, just preview) if it gets deleted.

@Flamingnerd: Wikipedia notability is different from real-life notability. Unless this hits major media sources (New York Times or similar big-city papers) then it won't merit its own article. Section in rape culture? Likely; this makes more sense as a datapoint rather than a bio. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I change my "keep" to neutral pending the next few days of news, but I request that the closing admin be amenable to undeletion if it becomes clear that this is notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What a comedian says in a monologue can't be considered as self-incrimination either legally or on Wikipedia. He could be making it all up for shock value, or exaggerating, or telling the truth. What a comedian says on stage is evidence of exactly nothing more than the words that were uttered on stage. I am not saying that this comedian is innocent, and perhaps he will prove to be both legally guilty and notable over time. Then on the other hand, maybe not. Right now, we don't know any of that. All we know is that there is a bit of a media frenzy. And none of it justifies an accusatory WP:BLP1E. This article needs to go as soon as possible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not about legal guilt, it's about the internet discussion on what constitutes consent and what is rape and this man who stars in a very public, very graphic description that has already been published in Huffpo. Flamingnerd (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, Flamingnerd, but couldn't disagree more. Please read our policy on biographies of living people. Then read about how we deal with biographies of living people known for one event. Once you've read them, ponder them and re-read them until you understand them thoroughly. These policies are non-negotiable here, and can't be overcome by a spate of sensationalistic news coverage of a comedian's vulgar and offensive monologue. Not by a long shot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the citations are all highly biased agenda driven sources and I doubt the incident will every be notable enough to be covered by anyone interested in writing a neutral article. Also a classic case of BLP1E. extransit (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pronto. Wikipedia isn't a blog; it considers the inclusion of "newsworthy" stuff after this has proved its newsworthiness by getting into the newspapers. Oh, but then BLP1E would probably rule this one out. ¶ I'd speedy this one right now if I weren't too ~~lazy~~ busy to read up on the technical stuff about how to close an AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (quickly). This may (or may not) become notable in the future, but is not now. If the subject is actually prosecuted and/or convicted, that starts to make a case for inclusion. However, even if an editorial in a non-blog, highly-notable source appears, that still most likely only suggest inclusion of a footnote or mention in some other article, such as one about 1st Amendment issue or Date Rape or Rape Culture (depends what hypothetical article says, of course). But so far, there is one event of an offensive "comedy" routine--which may or may not accurately portray underlying events--and that doesn't suffice for WP notability. In fact, in mostly just raises the real BLP concern. Moreover, just because some people or events that started as viral videos went onto become notable, that doesn't predict that this one will follow that course (YouTube has millions of videos that get little attention, and whose lifetime of such attention is highly limited... we don't know what direction this will go). Memories of lost time (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memories, thanks for that explanation. That made more sense to my sleep-addled brain. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pi: you should perhaps clarify your !vote in this discussion. You give neutral and keep in two different parts; conventionally, one puts ~~strikeout~~ marks over a !vote that no longer applies because of further consideration. Memories of lost time (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to City_of_Glen_Eira#Past_and_current_Glen_Eira_councillors and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Esakoff

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. being a mayor does not guarantee notability. coverage is merely about her making comments in the media, rather than coverage of her as an individual. [11] LibStar (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. Being a mayor does not satisfy WP:POLITICIAN and, although she gets a few hits in the gnews archive, I could find nothing that could be considered the significant coverage that is required to pass GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to City of Glen Eira. Very little news coverage found about her. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BattleCraft

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

Unsourced, not notable, blatantly written like an advertisement (to the point that none of the prose can be saved). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely a cool looking game, but I could not find even one reliable source covering it, only forum posts. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Core dump. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dumpfile

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

Patent nonsense. It this a hoax? Fleet Command (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most basic OS troubleshooting components for most every known operating system and to troubleshoot malware. Sorry to say, but this is a very well known term among most intermediate computer users. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edited Upon further research and the other nom reasonings, I have decided to change to a redirect to Core dump as this does better describe the concept. I will retain a copy of this article to merge in the Windows-centric details within the body of "Core dump" where I can and thank everyone for their input and clear explanations of their votes. No further comment will be made to the nominator on my side. Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter nonsense! Did you even read the so-called article before saying such a thing? It talks about computer simulation. Fleet Command (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it actually is about Windows dump files, or Minidumps as they're officially known. However the author clearly doesn't understand what they contain nor how they're used. Pburka (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is that so? Well, I say do feel free to let your imagination run away with yourself in this case. Anyway, Windows dump files cannot be opened with Task Manager and they don't simulate anything. In any case, I will keep a link to this AfD as a joke. If I were an uninvolved admin, I would have blocked this User:Mrschimpf a.k.a Nate for exhibiting such a low degree of competence (advising Speedy Keep for patent nonsense). Fleet Command (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Wow, assume good faith, will you please? I was commenting on the Windows portion of the article. If there's an issue with the actual writing of the article, please, fix it. I have been here six years and really don't appreciate being talked down to like this in a nomination process at all. I reduced it down to a plain keep, but I felt your nomination rationale was not written well to begin with. I'm not going to comment further but I have looked in dumpfiles often to troubleshoot installs in Windows. Nate • (chatter) 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Wow! This is most glaring misuse of "Assume Good Faith" and "So Fix It" that I have ever seen, especially in response to "Competence is required". ("Competence is required" basically says "ban this guy because he is damaging Wikipedia in good faith".) Seriously Nate, you should read the articles to which you link as well as the article which you like to oppose. Fleet Command (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I will not engage with you further except to say that you can create a dumpfile in the task manager if you right-click on a process and then select 'Create dump file', so the article is correct in saying that dumpfiles can be created through the Task Manager, though badly written (thus the cite of SOFIXIT, which I have now done with a cite to the MS Knowledge Base). I am trying to engage with you civilly and it's clear that you do not want to do so; do not expect further discussion from me as I have defended my view of the article. Nate • (chatter) 06:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There is no such command in my Task Manager. Fleet Command (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well, I am an ininvolved admin, and there is nothing block-worthy about Nate's conduct here - quite the opposite. Suggesting that you'd block an editor essentially for disagreeing with you is bad form, and does very little to support your argument. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite right. But I said "If I were..." which is a hypothetical expression about myself and uses reinforced negation: I am neither an admin nor uninvolved! The whole point of my post was saying that careless voting in AfD proves damaging to Wikipedia, be it in good faith or bad faith. All the same, if you don't know about reinforced negation, you know that admins have different opinions, right? If my memory serves me well, you are the administrator who was partly involved with me in a case in which a user (I won't name him here) closed an AfD unilaterally; you did not block that user but another admin did. Fleet Command (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If I'm involved with regards to you, then it's news to me. To be honest, I don't recall any such incident - which says nothing at all other than that I don't remember the incident, the details, or that I had been involved in an incident that involved you. Sorry. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to core dump. This article is quite confused, but I think it's trying to describe Windows dump files, which are essentially equivalent to core dumps. Pburka (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe as DMP file or something. Sources can be found, such as this. I imagine most Windows formats could be considered notable MadCow257 (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You imagine? This so-called article is just a line of incomprehensible gibberish and things like this must be deleted per WP:CSD#G1. I do not know why it has become fashionable that people come to AfDs and mumble something about notability and say "I imagine". Fleet Command (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't immediately obvious that page is nonsense - if you had given an explanation of the claim this would have been avoided. The page has multiple editors, the context is split between minidump and Electronic design automation — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadCow257 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Core dump. This will cover at least half of what this confused article is trying to do. --Kvng (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not a hoax, not patent nonsense and does not refer to a Core dump; the single-purpose author of this article (User:Bybell) created or edited a set of related articles all based on/around a single open-source software product, GTKWave. dumpfile in this context refers to an effectively proprietary dump of data from a GTKWave simulation; there are several related articles about specific types of dumpfiles in the GTKWave context. At least one of the related articles (GtkPlug) is already prod'd and there is a clear conflict-of-interest as this user is apparently also the author/maintainer of the GTKWave software. The GTKWave software is probably notable; the concept of dumpfiles with respect to it certainly isn't. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shmidcat, a related article by the same user already deleted and redirected to GTKWave.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm! Nice to know all these... except "Dump files can be accessed through the task manager on a Microsoft Windows OS (Operating System)", which constitute half the article, is pure patent nonsense (or misinformation): Task Manager does not open anything at all. Fleet Command (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please review the definition of WP:Patent nonsense. Nothing in this article is patent nonsense and it does not qualify for speedy deletion. Wrong is not the same thing as nonsense. Pburka (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let us just agree to disagree on this matter because I strongly feel that the article meets the following definition:
      Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. If the meaning cannot be identified, it is impossible to accurately copy-edit the text.
      In fact, I brought it to AfD because I did expect some opposition. (Although I expected... Never mind.) Fleet Command (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that there's nothing salvageable in in the current article. There is indication in the article and quick research I did that Dumpfile can refer to the approximate equivalent of a Core dump on a non-Unix OS. --Kvng (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand. You are referring to plausible redirect policy. Good course of action. I appreciate it. Fleet Command (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Core dump, per the above. On point, there is nothing in this article that qualifies as WP:Patent nonsense. If the original author has a pattern of bad articles and seems to be a single purpose account, that can be dealt with - but is outside the scope of this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to core dump with WP:SNOW. Removed unreferenced rubbish about simulators. -- samj _in ^out 07:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And actually added a reference too! Superb work! (Too bad though; the article still have a lot in the way of merit to be kept.) Still, I believe you can safely change your recommended action from Redirect to Merge. I hate seeing your bit of alchemy lost! Fleet Command (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Core dump which covers the topic very well and in enough detail already.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Core dump. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Baldwin (baseball)

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

Subject fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Giants27(T|C) 02:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 02:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 02:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO he meets WP:MLB/N#6. But in lieu of deleting maybe the basic info should be merged to Minnesota Twins minor league players? CRRays Head90 | ^{Another way...} 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players because I believe he fails WP:GNG and WP:MLB/N, but he's still active. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Fails WP:MLB/N having not played in major league yet. Fails WP:GNG requiring multiple sources of non-routine coverage in independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see where you have to play in the majors to be notable. CRRays Head90 | ^{Another way...} 10:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't need to have played in the majors, but MLB/N#6 is a (poorly) summarized version of GNG, which he fails without multiple, non-routine source.—Bagumba (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Alex (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cole DeVries

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

Subject fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Good faith search turns up routine coverage for a baseball player. Not opposed to a possible redirect to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Giants27(T|C) 02:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 02:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 02:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players because I believe he fails WP:GNG and WP:MLB/N, but he's still active. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MLB/N.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Alex (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 01:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headless Nun

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

The person mentioned in the story may possibly be notable - I'm quite sure her ghost is not, though, not surprisingly, the legend is used for tourism purposes. St Anselm (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The legend is detailed in numerous sources and so is notable. Warden (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which legend? The one that "the sister and the local widows, gathered up valuables from deceased Acadian soldiers and hid them away before the British came to attack"? St Anselm (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's actually the legend that's notable (we have WP:RS to verify it as being among folklore of the region) and not the dead person or their supposed ghost. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Flanagan

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

Lack of sources and overall lacks notability. Band and single in article don't have pages either. His name, likes some of the other members of a past band noted in the article, should suffice just being on the band pages. As an individual, he is not notable enough and yields very few Google hits individually. Finally, I could not find ONE Google News article on him.Blue man67 (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable by normal standards. Soundsboy (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at best, redirect to The Actual (band), which appears to be notable. If and when his current group becomes notable in its own right, then at least he might satisfy criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO. In the meantime, I can't find significant coverage for the subject in relibale sources such that a separate article is warranted. Gongshow ^Talk 23:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To closing admin I've procedurally relisted this discussion because the AFD tag was removed six minutes after the article was tagged and two minutes before the AFD discussion page was created.--v/r - T P 01:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It may be a good idea to go ahead and have that merge discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gunmen's Blues

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

Does not appear notable. Google search Darkness Shines (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the movie appears on the publishers website, it can be found nowhere else. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 02:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NF by being Eric Red's very first film,[12][13] made while he was a student at the AFI Conservatory. He went broke in trying to get it national distribution, and had to drive a cab in New York for a year to recoup.[14] And to Don4of4, the film is not quite lost. As the article states, the short is viewable (and downloadable) at Google videos Just watched it. Interesting that the film's IMDB page does not list Matt Dillon in the cast, but this is because Dillion is definitely NOT in the film. Back in 1981, a far younger Konrad Sheehan[15] did bear a slight resemblance to Dillon,[16] and this may have initiated the rumour of Dillion's being in it on the various Dillon fan sites which then spilled over into user editable databases. But IMDB does have it correct, and I have removed that error from the article when adding a couple sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy WP:NFF this point is partially mute. "films produced in the past which were ... not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." My vote stands. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 23:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A more applicable portion of that subsection of NF states unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Sourcable as the very first film of a notable director makes it's production worthy of note. And in toward ...not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines., we still can look to it being sourcable as the very first film of a notable director as making it it worthy of note. As the topic has independent coverage as the notable director's first-ever film, we have a meeting of WP:NF, WP:GNG, and WP:NRVE. Yes, it was produced in the past and failed distribtion then. So what? It has a distributor now, and they must hate that it's available to any who clicks this link Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the work should be mentioned in the directors article, I fell it is not notable enough to earn it's own article. Considering the director, Eric Red has a rather short article (<15 lines) I think this should be merged with his main page. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 01:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should be mentioned this article has been up since June 2, 2006 with no problem until now. While neither of them are as well known as, say, John Carpenter, this short does involve two notable genre people - Darwin Joston and Eric Red, whose first film this was. As stated above, it does now have a distributor. And as it would not be appropriate to merge all the text from this film page into Eric Red's page, it should stand on its own. Gothicfilm (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That the article has existed since 2006 has no bearing. Look, it was somebody's first film. That could matter if the person is very notable. Eric Red isn't. His article lede states that he's best known for writing the horror films The Hitcher and Near Dark. These are a couple of B movies. Near Dark "did poorly at the box office"; I don't know how The Hitcher did but it gets 59% at Rotten Tomatoes. This is not Alfred Hitchcock or Frank Capra we're talking about here. It's not even a feature film, it's a short. It's some guy's film-school student project. So was Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB. And when Red reaches Lucas's level of notability, we can revisit the issue. Herostratus (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a database of school/college projects. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is beyond a "school/college project" as it got distribution. And I don't believe the standard of notability is Hitchcock or George Lucas. Gothicfilm (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live: London Festival '09 (Placebo album)

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deafault to keep and close as no arguements to support the deletion have been found. Instead, we get this constant relisting as a weak attempt to delete it. Lugnuts (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Rules Kick Tournament 2007 in Marseilles

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

alsweo nominating:

here we go again. another non notable series of kickboxing results that clearly fail WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Reasoning for each below:

K-1 Rules Kick Tournament: No sources with substantial coverage found in either news or a standard search-- only videos, facebook pages, and fan forums.

K-1 Rules Heavyweight Tournament: News search revealed different tournament coverage (not this one), and a standard search revealed only fan forums and videos.

K-1 World MAX: Although this tournament appears to get current coverage, the 2007 tournament in Japan was only covered in articles by K-1. Could not find independent sources that describe the event in-depth.

K-1 Fighting Network Prague: There are a bunch of listings saying that this event occurred, but nothing in-depth required for fulfill WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jethrobot and previous deletions MadCow257 (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jethrobot. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airliners International

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

Declined speedy deletion G11 candidate, but still would appear to fail WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This convention does not appear to meet the WP:GNG as I have not been able to find significant coverage of the event in secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fur and Loathing

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

Deprodded because of WP:GOOGLEHITS but i found only tangential mentions. Doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was deprodded because of Google News hits like this, this and this. Most indeed seek to cover the fandom rather than the show, but they each mention specific elements of the episode (which is typically also mentioned by name) that could be used to back facts within the article (e.g. "starts with a man dressed as a raccoon found dead by the side of a road", "portrayed the community as a community of sexual deviants who like to have sex in fur costumes", "showed attendees at a furry convention engaging in a costume-clad orgy"). The fact that it is mentioned at all indicates that it is a notable example of mass media [mis]representation of furry fandom. GreenReaper (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You really think three one-sentence mentions in the context of something else = non-trivial? Apparently I need to whack you with a trout AND a dictionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When those mentions indicate that the episode has entered into the lore of popular culture? Absolutely. GreenReaper (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our rules. Every episode of CSI is going to pass the low bar that is WP:NOTE. I did a little searching, and found this, which is a bit more than one sentence. Their are other refs with at least one sentence besides the ones mentioned above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC) [17] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable, e.g. "...in this truly bizarre episode they've outdone themselves..." Warden (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Randall (entertainer)

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

Prod contested without explanation on talk. Fail WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG. Not notable artist. Cerejota (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. Can be recreated if he has a hit song or a major acting role. Pburka (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Everett

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

Unreferenced biography of a voice actor who fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Most of the characters she's voiced aren't named, and it's not clear that the named characters are major characters. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources; just some primary sources confirming her credits and unreliable sources like IMDB. Pburka (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm going have to say delete because I couldn't find many sources aside from IMDb that could support a biography, not to mention it's seems she's a low-profile voice actress so it reduces a chance of solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jetter Mars: Planet Mars

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

Cannot find any proof that this game exists. Previously nominated as hoax but contested. A search of the major game sites (allgame, GameSpot, IGN) returned nothing and a quick Google search also provided nothing. Salavat (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin who declined the speedy deletion, as I wanted it to be reviewed more thoroughly. I agree with the evidence that Salavat has provided above; it appears to not be an actual game. Thanks for doing the legwork. Delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Salavat (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the Japanese wikipedia list of PlayStation games and the game simply does not exist. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pete Sears. Courcelles 01:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannette Sears

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO, with no secondary coverage, and notability is not inherited. Most of this page is lifted from subject's website. Yoninah (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few hints of coverage, e.g., this LA Times article behind a paywall is hard to judge but perhaps the most likely to be "significant", everything else I saw seems passing, e.g., [18]. Seems a tiny bit short of the GNG bar, and with the one quote I can tease out of the LA Times being "Jeannette Sears' lyrics are replete with feeble attempts at imagery and cosmic ruminations whose fatuousness is exceeded only by that of Kansas. ...", I suspect that a Redirect to Pete Sears would be the kindest choice in any case. Checked the usual array of Google sources plus Billboard. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Peter Sears per joe decker. Pburka (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley O'Neal

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

Subject fails WP:BIO with absence of secondary coverage. Yoninah (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He may been a member of two Grammy winning bands, but there seems to be very little sources that could support a biography on Wikipedia. It's seems like nothing much has changed since it's development into an article over two years ago. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. If he'd won the Grammy Awards he'd be notable, but working with Grammy winners is not sufficient. Pburka (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Lee (song)

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

This isn't a song, it's a semi well known viral video. It's not notable and the bulk of references are from YouTube. AniMate 09:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Status {^talk_contribs 07:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. –BuickCentury Driver 01:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Csige

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

Autobiographical promotional article, largely unreferenced, about a writer/filmmaker of questionable notability. Book appears to be self-published (published by "CsiMec, Inc." a company run by the author). Little significant coverage from independent sources outside local press - Google search turns up a lot of primary sources, social media, and other content written by the author (such as his IMDB listing). No reliable sources found to corroborate award claims or PBS airings (only the local station appears to have run it). MikeWazowski (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm uncertain about the film, but the book is certainly of no importance, and I just deleted the repeatedly recreated article on it as G11, promotional. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article citations need addressing, but references appear to be available for he and his works: Honolulu Star-Advertiser [19] San Francisco Chronicle [20] Hawaii Reporter [21] and few others about his work with the Kamuela Philharmonic Orchestra winning the 'Aloha Accolade Award for Excellence' at the Honolulu International Film Festival. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem stems from this being autobiographical, COI and OR. If you remove the unreferenced parts, a very small stub would be left. That being said, that which would remain does indicate documented accomplishments. The questions are, then, are those accomplishments notable enough, and is the hypothetical stub itself adequate to seed an article by a disinterested editor? The answers I would give are, Maybe and Doubtful. I know, this is not bold, but I am loath to recommend deletion if there is a chance useful information can be preserved. Plus I have never been involved in an article deletion process before and am interested in understanding the criteria better. I cleaned up three references as a good-will gesture to the author since he seem new at this, none of the content was at all malicious, and some of it was known to be truthful. My message left on the article talk page, warning that my efforts would only give some time for corrections to be made, has not been answered. Alawa (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with respect to WP:AUTHOR, the 2 books are in zero worldCat libraries; I conclude therefore that the reviews in local newspapers were not reliable sources, as is frequently the case--they tend to be indiscriminate with respect to local authors. I see no real evidence the films were of substantial importance. DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references supplied by Schmidt do not help. They go to blog entries on local media, not edited by staff, and are obviously redundant and from the same source. The SF Chronicle ref mentions the name briefly but does not have independent information. The film festival award is mentioned by the orchestra website [[22]], and this seems like an acceptable source. The production is not included in the archives of the film festival, as far as I could find. Schmidt's link does not go to the film festival site, but the festival does exist[[23]] and the 2009 program guide is reproduced there--no mention of this film, which was not chosen for screening during the festival. The program guide has no mention of the award, unless I missed it. The DVD only is mentioned on Herb Kane's website [[24]], Kane being the artist whose imagery constitutes the visual aspect of the film. It is highly doubtful that PBS would have put this production on the national schedule (which I think is what most people think is meant by being broadcast by PBS) or even distributed it beyond the local market as a free offer (which they do for occasional productions that are then aired by local stations at their own discretion, generally without publicity--essentially filler), so if it was on television it was probably only on the public television station in Hawaii, not PBS. In any case I find no published source for it on PBS, and if it was on local public TV I have not found that source either, which is not to say it did not happen but it is OR. I would say, based on the sources, that the notability of neither the film nor its original score is adequately established. I'm trying to find a way to rescue this but it is not easy. Alawa (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Shaw (sports commentator)

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

The only 3rd party sources are trivial mentions, or don't mention this person at all. This appears to be a non-notable local sports reporter and online commentator. The only award listed[25] is FLORIDA ASSOCIATED PRESS BEST LONG LIGHT FEATURE- A LEAGUE OF OUR OWN, plus 2 runners up, these are for local sports reporting. Not enough to to pass WP:BIO Tassedethe (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Seems to be a pattern with these types getting articles lately.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel this page should be deleted. Robert Shaw is often on Bloomberg Television and Bloomberg Radio, both of which are international. He can be found writing for both Canadian and American sports and news organizations. He can also be found on usatoday.com, in his live Q&As on the Washington Post wapo.st/oiF6xX, and often on Sirius/XM Radio. These seem like more than enough to qualify him to be featured on wikipedia. jsheldon1 (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2011 (EST)

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, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My inclination is to keep this piece based on the quantity and quality of the information presented. Pretty obviously written by the subject or someone close to the subject, but non-celebratory in tone. Sourcing is very poor, a couple of the footnotes I took a look at have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. It does seem that Mr. Shaw has won at least several regional ~~Emmy~~ Associated Press awards; I'm not sure if that cuts mustard for others, but it's sufficient for me, I reckon. This should be tagged for additional third party sources. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable commentator by any stretch of the imagination.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Copa Libertadores

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Lack of sources for 2013 edition. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the countries whose season started mid-2011, their qualification methods for the 2013 Copa Libertadores have already been decided. For example, Argentina: [26] (page 2); Bolivia: [27] (page 5-6). I tried to find the regulations for Uruguay and Venezuela, but their FA websites only have the versions for 2010-11, but it is reasonable to assume that their qualification methods remain unchanged for 2011-12. The first team to qualify for the 2013 Copa Libertadores would be the Venezuela Apertura winners, who will be decided by December 2011, so even if we delete this article now, it would be created validly again in a few months time. So I think a bit of cleanup and adding sources would suffice. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as long as there are no reliable sources. Alex^{discussion ★} 15:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 18:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entire contents are speculative (so per nom.), it contains several redlinks that are at least 12 months from being started. The lack of sourcing may just indicate that there are no sources because of the contents speculative nature. Once the speculation is removed there is little information that can not and is not easily carried by the parent Copa Libertadores article. Wikipedia should not be used as a holding pattern if adequate sourcing may not able to begin for months. --Falcadore (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The redlinks are leagues whose seasons are in the calendar year 2012, so they will all start within the next 12 months, some of them as early as January 2012. And the first team to qualify for the 2013 Copa Libertadores is the Venezuela Apertura winners, which will be decided by December 2011, so even if we delete this article now, it would be created validly again in a few months time. For the four countries whose seasons have started, I have added sources to their regulations if available. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If recreated should mention what sport is being played. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This competition is two editions away and the teams that will play in it are close to being decided for some countries. For comparison there is an article on the 2022 World Cup, three editions away. This article needs to be improved not deleted.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Carter

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

Non notable sibling of a notable person. Only reference is to PR Web. Pudge MclameO (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Pudge MclameO (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, no reliable sources about the subject, appears to be an attempt at notability by association. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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