Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 29

< 28 October	30 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Academy Youth Orchestra

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

This organization does not meet the general notability guideline Iairsometimes (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is commensurate in length and content with most of the articles in its category (List of youth orchestras in the United States), yet it is the only one of the couple dozen selected at random nominated for deletion. In that many others in this category are much thinner and were not targeted for deletion first, and it matches style and length of the category. Therefore, this AfD should be rejected.--DeknMike (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The existence of other articles is not relevant to this discussion. The sourcing in this article is either primary sources, or ones which would not be deemed a reliable source. A search for significant coverage about this youth orchestra does not turn up any coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only brought it up because new user (or sock puppet) Iairsometimes picked the only orchestra on the list I had contributed to - and no others - after attempting to delete several other articles I edited on. Looks like a personal attack.--DeknMike (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator is stalking your edits and articles, you may want to look into some administrator intervention. That sort of behaviour is not acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just mostly primary sources. --Cox wasan (talk) 23:38, 2 November 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 Church planting. actually either way round but the consensus is we need one not two article Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Church Planting Movement

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

The topic of this article does not meet the general notability guideline Iairsometimes (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FORK of Church planting. It is a notable topic, though. --AJHingston (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Church planting. The term seems common enough, and there seems to be some good references, but Church planting is definitely the topic to which it belongs. St Anselm (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article on Church planting is as a general overview of the process of starting new churches by various methods. The Church Planting Movement article is an expansion with detail of an emerging trend and method which is sufficiently different from other church planting approaches. Merging this article within the church planting main article risks overwhelming the rest of that article. Note it is not, as some who commented on the page have suggested, a marketing approach by the Southern Baptists, but rather a multinational movement which began in several indigenous denominations and has propagated through the various missions communities, including the Baptists.--DeknMike (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Time out: The reasoning here is that this article is a fork of church planting, but an admin just redirected church planting to church planting movement [1]. Now, deleting this article also delete the article you are saying it is a fork of. If that redirect is going to stay, then the delete reasons hold no weight. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, Niteshift: I redirected that simply as a bold editor. I am sitting in the kitchen, not wearing my tin-foil admin hat. Anyway, it's already been undone, and I guess the D of the BRD cycle is happening here and on my talk. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not starting a conspiracy theory, just pointing out what is going on for those who might not have been looking at the other article. And I Started putting this here before you commented (hence the edit conflict). Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know: I'm just indicating to other editors (less seasoned than yourself) that there are no special powers or privileges involved in my redirect, just to make sure. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's funny: I just redirect Church planting to this article, and then I saw that this was nominated for deletion, by someone who failed to provide much of a reason (well, the errors of youth). Anyway, Church planting is a terrible article: seriously, it's awful, full of advice and without any kind of a reliable source. Deknmike, above, argues that this is the more general term, as does Anselm, but I disagree: I don't think church planting is a concept at all outside of the movement (Protestant, esp. Southern Baptist) of church planting--that is, the Church Planting Movement. (I could go on, but that's for another discussion, possibly a merge discussion if my redirect is removed.) The CPM article, as it stands, is not great, but it's notable enough, even if most of the literature I dug up isn't exactly of the highest neutrality. See the Don Fanning article, for instance--hardly neutral, but very insightful, and indicative of the importance given tot his kind of mission in certain congregations. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (both). Yes there is work to do, but that work can be done. The books are all in a booklist on the page! Church Planting Movement is the pet project of one small part of the church planting world. Some who have tried to implement it have found, to their cost, that it is a modernist construct without any track record. The point here, is that these are not identical ideas. Hyper3 (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The books in those list don't qualify as academic or otherwise notable and independent publications that discuss the topic. Rather they are (or were) manuals published by various churches. But that's beside the point--I find it sad that such work wasn't done for these articles, at least not from the point of view of improving the encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some, you are right, but not all by any means. Hyper3 (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly the Church of England 2004 report 'Mission-shaped church' (subtitled church planting and fresh expressions of church in a changing context) cannot be so lightly dismissed. It would easily meet the WP notability requirement in its own right and has been endlessly quoted and built upon. The expression church planting is widely used by people who would not all identify with a Church Planting Movement. This does look very much like a POV fork to me and if it is to survive as a separate article it would need to place the CPM within the context of church planting and explain what made it a distinct movement within that. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to claim exclusive possession of a common term. A sadly familiar situation for Christians. --AJHingston (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem, as I see it, is that the one term is general and vague and points more at the dictionary than anything else; the other (the topic of this AfD) is a specific name for a kind of strategy. "Church planting" as a concept is simply not precise enough to build a definition/article with: it is an aspect of missionary strategy. I have tried to make that article more precise, but at some point it just seems like these are just two words put together. BTW, you are welcom to restore links, preferably on an individual basis with an explanation. But these articles cannot be hijacked and used as repositories for propaganda material. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Its like the difference between talking about the nature of a cow and the needs of a herd: the planting of an individual church has many books written about it, and is a topic in itself; a CPM, on the other hand is a movement within a culture that results in many churches being planted; the planting of churches is almost subsidiary to the initiation of the movement. For those of us who work in this environment (my PhD thesis involves these definitions) these two things are very different. They need different articles. Hyper3 (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<--No it's not, I'm afraid. The "planting of churches" is not yet proven to be a topic in its own right, as distinct from the spread of a church/denomination by way of moving to new areas and building churches there--PhD or not. But all that is neither here nor there. This is about CPM, which appears to be a topic. Church planting is next, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" The "planting of churches" is not yet proven to be a topic in its own right" -???? Hyper3 (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this may surprise you--but I wonder if you've ever looked at WP:RS. Notwithstanding the claims that CPM is a fork, Church planting is actually an incredibly bad article on a topic that isn't yet proven to be a topic. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suspect that the Church planting article was written from a British perspective. It is most certainly notable in the UK and as pointed out above has a distinct meaning certainly within the Church of England. There is a great deal written about it, and the Church of England report 'Mission-shaped Church' is the place to start - as a source it belongs in the Church planting article rather than the CPM article. But it isn't an area I'm interested or involved in and I'm not the person to improve the article. It is important to understand that it has a different significance and meaning within a church organised on a parish system with geographical boundaries for organisational purposes, in independent churches essentially competing for market share in a competitive religious 'economy', and for churches trying to expand into areas where there are few or any churches already. The philosophy and strategy may be different in each case and in some instances difficult to distinguish from any other approach to church foundation since the time of the apostles, but that is a problem for those improving the article(s) and does not really go to notability. There is a danger of allowing our own POV to intrude here. --AJHingston (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah I get it.. Drmies thinks that Church Planting Movement (CPM) is just another way of saying Church planting... like its the movement in the church that advocates Church planting. This isn't true at all. CPM is proposing that there are culture-level (nationwide sometimes) approaches to spreading the gospel that result in many new churches being planted. Church planting (a term that forms the title of many, many books is about the beginning of individual churches, and is much more prosaic. Hyper3 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FORK of Church planting.--Cox wasan (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence for notability from third-party reliable sources. There is no question that the broader topic of the expansion of some Protestant denominations in less-developed parts of the world in recent years is notable (by any standards, not just Wikipedia's), but this article seems to be about little more than a catch-phrase or metaphor used by certain groups. Without verifiable evidence that this 'planting' differs from other methods used to spread 'the word', this article will surely fall on stony ground [2]... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Church planting as a content fork. There are issues with notability as well as presented by others adequately above. I think that perhaps merging the content as well into a section would be fine. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:05, 6 November 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. Tone 13:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shereen Sherief

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

Fails to meet notability standards for biographies. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sourcing in the article does not establish notability. I read the article talk page where an editor asserts that Sherief is a well known activist. I was not able to find any significant coverage to would back up that assertion. I'm prepared to change my mind if reliable sources are presented, but at this point, I don't see anything that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a well known person.--Cox wasan (talk) 23:42, 2 November 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. Tone 13:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social impact of thong underwear

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

This article is one of the worst I've come across on Wikipedia, being basically a WP:Coatrack collection of incidents where this particular piece of underwear has been mentioned in the news along with some weakly cited societal observations. This really does not belong in an encyclopedia, nor does Social impact of dildos, Social impact of nailclippers, etc. The article Thong (clothing) does an adequate job of covering this piece of clothing. :) Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love the pun. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you-have-got-to-be-kidding delete as essay, OR, embarrassment... Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not remotely Encyclopedic. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be fairly well written and would meet WP:GNG. "This article is one of the worst I've come across on Wikipedia". Really? The worst you've come across? Was this the first and only article you've read on here? What policy does this violate that warrants deletion? Lugnuts (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a sourcable and well-sourced topic that has extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources, allowing the topic to be worthy of note. Any perception that any article on any notable topic might be itself poorly written, is a call for cleanup through regular editing. Perceived as not encyclopedic? Considering the wide and persistant coverage of this topic, and its sourcable societal impact, that is a decent reason to wish addressing perceived style and format flaws, but not one justifying deletion... that said, a proper merge to an expanded section at Thong (clothing) might be discussed on the article's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While WP:COAT is a very important essay in understanding notability, this article hardly is in violation. Rather it complies perfectly with WP:NOTE, the relevant guideline, including WP:GNG (coverage, significance, independence and reliability). On top of that the article contains content forked from the mother article (Thong (clothing)), a process that follows WP:CONTENTFORK, the most relevant content guideline here. I see no reason for a deletion or even a merger. All that it requires is a cleanup. But, of course, a cleanup is hard work, while arguing for deletion is not so at all. Thank you. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - maybe not the best article, but it is a legitimate content fork with lots of good sourcing. Too much stuff to be adequately contained in the parent article. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly suitable topic, with enough sources. Some people dislike dealing with such subjects in a serious encyclopedia, not realizing that Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia covering all of human life, not one limited to the conventional serious topics. And without specific reference to anyone, or to this AfD in particular, part of the opposition may sometimes be due to discomfort with discussion of sexual topics in a formal setting, even by those who are perfectly comfortable with such material in other settings. As for the suggestions in the nominations, Social impact of dildos would be an appropriate article, but I'm not sure about nail-clippers, on the basis that I can't for the moment think of any specifically relevant material for that one, but I don't know all the possible fields well enough to tell. DGG ( talk ) 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being a reasonable topic, well sourced, and easily arguable that there is ongoing societal changes in regards to how thongs are viewed, to the point of being political at times. It has raised issues of 'freedom of expression vs. censorship' as well as forcing society as a whole to ask 'what is nude?', caused thousands of people to join groups to either support or oppose their use in public, and generated large amounts of press in very reliable sources. This is easily verifiable, and within this article, fairly well documented. In short: Lots of controversy + lots of media coverage + over many years + societal impact = clearly passing criteria. Sorry, but I think you missed the point of the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, Dennis Brown, et al. This is an extremely well-cited, if badly-cited (I know professors who would cringe at the use of several citation styles). It could use some snipping as well, but I'm not touching this one; pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 3 November 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. If someone can manage a NPOV non-SYNTH text they are welcome to recreate this Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli peace camp

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

This article is essentially a polemic with blatant disregard for NPOV. It has only two sources; the rest is unverified original research. The topic itself is weasel wordy and all of the relevant material is discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia in better articles such as Politics of Israel, Anti-Zionism, and Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. GHcool (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Serious NOV and OR problem. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search here and Google News Archive search here show that "Israeli peace camp" is the term used for decades to describe the broad array of Israeli political forces advocating peace with the Palestinians. Shortcomings in the current version of the article should be addressed through normal editing rather than by deletion of an article about a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GHcool is correct that this article is pretty dreadful. It is also true that, given the dynamics of advocacy editing in the Israel-Palestine field, it will be a challenge to create an article of any quality. On the other hand, there is no denying that the article is about an important, much-discussed and researched phenomenon in Israeli life and politics. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Politics of Israel. As the lead itself says, "The peace camp is mostly associated with Israeli left-wing politics". This is but an unnecessary fork of that subject, with a sexier title. Even Hebrew wikipedia doesn't have a corresponding article. Poliocretes (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think there is any group in Israel with a policy of "we hate peace". This label for an article should be taken with skepticism. Looking at it skeptically, this is really just a bunch of WP:SYNTH , with no evidence that this is a common label. Also, no corresponding Hebrew article is fishy. Shii (tock) 12:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - poorly sourced and non-neutral in places, but fundamentally a notable concept and a legitimate subject of an article. I don't agree that it duplicates the articles listed by the nominator; there doesn't seem to be any one other article which covers this specific grouping (although Peace movement#Israel has some crossover). Politics of Israel, for example, focuses more on the parliamentary parties than extraparliamentary campaigners and pressure groups. As for the title - well, 'the peace camp' is what its own members call it, so it's a fair title. The 'Criticism' section makes it quite clear that not everyone sees it that way. Robofish (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's difficult to see how this article could ever be anything that doesn't violate NPOV or SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 23:04, 5 November 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. Tone 13:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Formanchuk

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, please note there's another opinion on the exsitense this article, by an administrator. See: User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#Kirill_Formanchuk. --ssr (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article includes a NY Times piece which features Formanchuk as the primary subject. A search reveals other sources which provide significant coverage with Formanchuk as either a primary or secondary subject. See: [3], [4], [5], [6]. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in several sources, including those listed by Whpg, is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. He's especially notable, since I don't think that it's common for Russians to be covered in an American newspaper, especially the New York Times.--Slon02 (talk) 22:23, 2 November 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. Article deleted pursuant to WP:CSD#G7. Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Boss

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

WP:NSPORT says that for a rugby league player to be notable, the player has to have played at least one match in a fully professional league. In Australia, that is the National Rugby League (NRL). This article was created in 2009, when the player might have been considered an up-and-comer, playing in the Newcastle Knights' Under-20s (Toyota Cup) team. But he has never cracked first-grade NRL football, as the notablity standards require. According to this source, he hasn't played in the Toyota Cup for over a year: the article is thus out of date when it says "He plays at second row and prop in the Under-20s Toyota Cup competition". There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No mentions in the Sydney Morning Herald, Canberra Times or ABC. --LauraHale (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:RLN. WWGB (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with those above. Hasn't played in the NRL, so fails NSPORT and I can't find any significant coverage (this passing mention in the Newcastle Herald is all gnews brings up), so fails the general notability guideline as well. Jenks24 (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well yeah the article was created by me a while ago when he was an up & comer but hasn't made FG yet so I guess it's not really eligible for Wikipedia. But he is still playing in NSW Cup for the Knights so you guys can make the decision. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he's still playing for the Knights in the NSW Cup, we could always redirect the article to Newcastle's page instead of deleting it, so the page history is still there to be restored in case Wayne Bennett thinks he has something. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 07:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. That said, Usual Caveats apply. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:01, 1 November 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. Article Speedy Deleted as Hoax.

Lady Georgie Windsor

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

Suspected hoax. Searching for references for the article came up blank. Edit by article author seems to suggest this is the case Stephen! ^Coming... 21:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No mention of her here or here, nor on Google. Not having any Google results for an alleged member of the British Royal Family should be a dead giveaway that this is nothing but a hoax. _noisy jinx ^huh? 21:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was nominated for speedy under WP:CSD#A7, but I declined it as notability was asserted. As no references, I added PRODBLP, and started looking for my own. When I couldn't find any, I started to wonder why, and thus looked a bit deeper. Rather than speedy delete it as a hoax, I felt it best to tag it and let others look for some - there is such a thing as getting to colse to a problem... Stephen! ^Coming... 21:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as a hoax Dubretts does not list her under the Earl of St. Andrews offspring [7], and if they don't it can be assumed she does not exist. Mangoe (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 30 October 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. Tone 13:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pottsylvania

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

Only 5 citations. Not enough sources to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have multiple non-trivial references to RS, meeting GNG. Nominator also doesn't give any indication of having followed WP:BEFORE--the nom appears to be based on the current state of the article, rather than an assertion that a search failed to turn up more RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless one slept through the 60s, one was exposed to Rocky. Lots of sources around, I do not see where "only 5" has ever been found as a reason for article deletion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No objective evidence that the fictional location meets the general notability guideline since a few sources that repeat the plot of the cartoon are not significant coverage. In my opinion it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work, since no secondary source appear to provide analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional island to presume that it is notable beyond the plot of the series. The only one perhaps is Lidz (2000), but it is a trivial mention at best and again is with regard to the plot, so I do not believe that a stand-alone article is justified. Jfgslo (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: [8] in "The Mosse That Roared." [9] in an executive motivational book. [10] in an illustrated TV encyclopedia. [11] in a popular culture encyclopedia. [12] "Foundations of Management Knowledge". [13] Animation and America. [14] Anti-Communism and Popular Culture in Mid-Century America. Showing references in management books, motivational books, books on politics, books on animation and on popular culture in general. More than just a couple of sources giving a plot, to be sure, and more than enough for Wikipedia notability (indeed, far more sources than most of the popular culture articles on Wikipedia!) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Collect's masterful rebuttal of the boilerplate rationale posted across multiple AfDs by Jfgslo. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: important part of a fictious world.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 04:20, 2 November 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 Petra Ecclestone. Tone 13:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James stunt

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

Only verifiable assertion of notability is marriage to a notable person. Unless more coverage is found (for example, if he is also notable as a businessman) the article should be deleted or redirected. Peter E. James (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The 2007 version of this article was deleted after this AfD as a likely hoax. Clearly there have been further developments since which alter the situation. Sparthorse (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reference included are substantially about Petra Ecclestone who is clearly notable. They are not substantial coverage of Stunt. I can see no evidence he meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines nor the specific notability guidelines for living people. Marrying someone notable does not in itself make you notable. Nor does having a lot of money and calling yourself a businessman. As a side note, should the article be kept, the original James Stunt should be de-salted and this article moved there. Sparthorse (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article has been enhanced since last being checked. there are now pure references to Mr Stunt himself, and also his noteworthy collections of old master paintings, of museum quality, and his unique linear collection of Petrus wine over a century long. Very much part of public interest. Kerkyra22 (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Petra Ecclestone. The sourcing in the article does not establish independent notability for Stunt. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Petra Ecclestone; Stunt is non-notable except for marrying her; per WP:BLP1E. HurricaneFan25 | talk 16:53, 3 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moosylvania

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

This article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 20:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—but there are sources in the world, esp these:

Keith Scott (23 October 2001). The Moose That Roared: The Story of Jay Ward, Bill Scott, a Flying Squirrel, and a Talking Moose. Macmillan. pp. 379–. ISBN 978-0-312-28383-4. Retrieved 29 October 2011.

Hal Erickson (July 2005). Television cartoon shows: an illustrated encyclopedia, 1949 through 2003. McFarland & Co. ISBN 978-0-7864-2256-2. Retrieved 29 October 2011.

Helen Thomas (5 March 2003). Thanks for the Memories, Mr. President: Wit and Wisdom from the Front Row at the White House. Simon and Schuster. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-0-7432-4233-2. Retrieved 29 October 2011.

these support the material in the article and establish its notability in my opinion. there are other sources as well, which you'll find, as i did, in the gbooks search.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It certainly has sources now... And they seem to attest to its real life impact fairly well for the article length. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not believe that the topic of the article meets the general notability guideline, and, in my opinion, it can only be an indiscriminate collection of information since it has no reception or significance in the real-world. The sources provided are not objective evidence of notability since they are either trivial mentions, accounts of its creation and anecdotes from primary sources or tertiary sources, but none provides analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional island to presume that it is notable beyond the plot of the series. Jfgslo (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the same potential RS sources provided in the Pottsylvania AfD discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to reliable sources presented above. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources presented.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:45, 5 November 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 - blatant hoax The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Shoryu

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

This is a hoax. This person does not exist. There was no shogun of this name at that time. The user (and a related IP 142.33.180.2--probably the same person) also have a history of vandalism of adding the name "Yusuke" on various pages. Michitaro (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any references outside of Wikipedia mirrors, so even if it's not a hoax there's nothing to establish notability and no prospect of verifiability/reliable sources --Miskwito (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of any reference sources to verify whether this person even existed - let alone satisfies the notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 01:51, 30 October 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. Tone 13:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feras Saleh

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

No evidence of notability (no evidence he has played at senior level in a professional league) .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is insufficient coverage for this footballer to meet WP:GNG. Youth footballers are explicitly exclude under WP:NSPORT, and he has not played in a fully pro league, or the Jordanian senior national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:44, 31 October 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 Deleted per A7 by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure)--Breawycker (talk to me!)

Mordecai and friends

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

Apparently self-published work, no sources or indication of notability, recreation of expired PROD. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and lack of ghits outside of a WordPress blog. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication has been given of how this work has been published. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a completely unremarkable and unpublished comic. Previously deleted already. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy delete. per nom, no sign of notablity, no references.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 20:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:MADEUP →Σ τ c. 20:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no sign of notablity, no references. --GHcool (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 30 October 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. Tone 13:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas DeSimone

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

Does not pass WP:CRIME, he is already mentioned in the Lufthansa heist article. Cox wasan (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG regardless of whether WP:CRIME is also met. Even if not, this would still be kept as a redirect, but the fact that he was the basis for Joe Pesci's character in Goodfellas further supports keeping this a standalone article in my view rather than just redirecting to the heist article. postdlf (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not sure why this is even up for debate. He is one of the most notorious gangsters in modern U.S. history, and as mentioned above, was the basis for one of the most iconic villian characters in film history. He is mentioned extensively in books, articles, and documentaries. He deserves a standalone article. 71.202.152.182 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 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. postdlf (talk) 07:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haleh Ghoreishi

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

No evidence at all of passing either the general notability guideline or the guideline for academics. There are four references, but one is her profile on the web site of the university where she works, two make only passing references to her, and the other one is a page saying that she won a prize, but how notable the prize is is unclear. I can find no significant independent coverage of the prize. The amount of independent coverage of Haleh Ghoreishi is very small for an academic. Everything I have seen is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that she is a perfectly ordinary and unnotable academic. (Note: Verification of information is made more difficult by the fact that her name sometimes appears as Halleh Ghorashi rather than Ghoreishi.) JamesBWatson (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is the holder of a named chair at a major university, and thus meets WP:PROF. This is way more than a "perfectly ordinary" academic. The ordinary academic is not a full professor in the most prestigious university in Holland. She has published several books, and at least a dozen peer-reviewed articles. This is considerably more than the "perfectly ordinary" academic. The publications show her an expert in her field. I added some of them to start with. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG has made me wonder if she may be more notable than I at first thought. However, at least some of DGG's reasoning is flawed. The fact that she has published "at least a dozen peer-reviewed articles" is certainly not an indication of notability beyond the typical academic: many research students have published half a dozen peer-reviewed articles, and a seriously notable academic can is very likely to have published far more than a dozen of them. Nor is having published several books a guarantee of notability: there are many people who have done so, but are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Thank you, DGG, for adding mention of some of her publications, that is certainly helpful. However, her own publications do nothing to esatblish notability, as we need publications about her, not by her. Unfortunately "professor" means different things in different parts of the world. A professor in one of the traditional universities in Britain, for example, is a very senior position, whereas the title "professor" in many American universities applies to quite junior university lecturers. Holding "a chair" is also a variable qualification: in some universities that indicates that the person is a head of a major department, in others no little more than that they are a couple of steps above the lowest rank. In this case she was an "assistant professor" until the Participatie van Vrouwen uit Etnische Minderheden created a "chair for her as part of its campaign to increase participation of immigrant women. How far that chair represents an acknowledgement of her academic importance and how far it represents that she was considered the kind of person they wanted to encourage is unclear. In such a case the way to decide is to look for substantial independent coverage. I have had no difficulty finding coverage of the fact that she hold that chair, but I have not managed to find anything that indicates that that chair is significant. The expression "full professor" exists in America, but I have never come across it in the context of the Netherlands, so I can't say what it entails, if indeed it is a translation of a recognised expression. There is still not a single source cited in the article which is independent of her and gives substantial co0verage of her, as opposed to just mentioning her or being by her. I do acknowledge that, in light of what DGG has said, it is possible that she is more notable than I at first thought, but I still can't find the sort of substantial independent coverage of her academic career that would confirm that she is. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~: This is the hardest Google search I've ever made in AfD discussions. JamesBWatson has rightfully observed that the different spelling of the name didn't help. The Encyclopedia of women and Islamic cultures has showed up in a search for "ghorashi halleh" but I definitely have no way to verify the content if her name was in it. It will be very much appreciated if someone who has access to this book can verify. Thanks in advance. Pmresource (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources that Drmies gave, this is a keeper. Pmresource (talk) 05:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't find anything on GS, GB, GN. Can anybody else? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. JBW, I've moved the article: Hallah Ghorashi is the way to go, as suggested by her coverage in the Dutch press. See this search, for instance. I've added a VPRO reference to the article that beefs up the biography a little bit. I'm kind of tired of BLPs, so I won't do much more to the article, but let me note this:

I'm not sure her particular named chair makes her automatically notable, but it's certainly more than a regular prof job.

It seems to me that she generates plenty of coverage in the Dutch press to say she passes GNG. Her inauguration was widely covered, for instance (some more hits for that here.

I can't judge the impact of her work since I haven't looked for reviews in the academic press (Crusio is really, really good at that sort of stuff) and for impact in the news media, but I'm confident that she doesn't even need to pass WP:PROF (though I guess she will) in that particular sense given her general newsworthiness. In all, she's a keeper, I'll go to bat for her, and I'm proud to claim her as one of us, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first source given is by her, not about her and so does not contribute to notability. The second group of sources are rather feeble, some are about different people with the same name. Others look like the sort of stuff that university public relation departments put out routinely. Xxanthippe (talk).

Look again. I've added sources from VPRO, a long interview with Intermediair (which needs an article, BTW), an article from the Reformatorisch Dagblad, and a pretty significant mention (a couple of paragraphs) from Trouw. I'm not sure what groups of sources you're talking about; I assure you that the references I added are from utterly reliable and independent sources, and they're about the same person--who clearly is recognized as an expert, a voice to be listened to, in the Dutch immigration and integration debate. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, she was listed as one of the most powerful women in the Netherlands. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I found to be inadequate were from your Google search here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Well, take out the home sales and the LSU graduation and you have a number of very decent sources, all of which attest to her professorial position, for instance. That in itself is enough for the GNG--how often do you find such widespread mention of a professor in the newspapers? Drmies (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A clear pass of both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The fact that most of the sources are in Dutch is irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which categories of WP:Prof are satisfied? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Thanks to the doc for removing any doubt. ^Bongo_matic 05:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure she meets WP:PROF: neither GS, nor WoS give high levels of citations (but WoS is not very strong in this area). However, I think this is a clear pass of WP:GNG per the reerences dug up by Drmies: interview in Intermediair (a rather prestigious publication), interviews in respectable newspapers, TV appearances. --Crusio (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ok, for your more information, i just wanted you to know the way you spelled her name is wrong. It's Halleh not Hallah. I'm a Persian and Halleh is a very common name in Iran. I don't care what they say as "suggested by her coverage in the Dutch press" this is the real sppelling of her name. i think you should moved it back to Halleh. (Reza ^(Talk2Me) 18:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- I've moved it to Halleh. Thank you for the suggestion, but please get off your high horse: it never was "Halleh". I committed a typo, not an act of cultural aggression. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please do not close this AfD prematurely to give opportunity for further evidence to support the subject's notability to emerge. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Why? This is clearly a candidate for snow close as keep. Nobody who has come after the new sourcing has hinted at doubt. ^Bongo_matic 02:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Mommy

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

Borderline advertising for a blog of questionable notability. Previously deleted for being promotional. Almost entirely sourced to the blog itself. Some news coverage found, but this is more about the author giving opinions, not coverage of the blog itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. In my opinion very close indeed to the borderline for speedy deletion as spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording of the article and made it less "opinionated" and it is no longer "almost entirely sourced to the blog itself" even though it wasn't in the first place. This post sites facts and links to credible news sites. The evidence of notability is in the links where the blog has been featured. Which there are numerous. I could add more to add more notability, but then it is "promotional." Also it was not previously deleted for being promotional, it was nominated for deletion. Racheleigh13 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 — Racheleigh13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article was previously deleted per G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). As it currently stands, the article does more to promote the blog's author rather than the bolg itself. Whatever, or wherever the blog author has written, any notability s/he may or may not have, is not inherited by the blog. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was never deleted. I have only put it up once, therefore it has never been deleted. It has been nominated for speedy deletion due to promotion. I took out most things about the blogs author, it focuses on the blog itself (even though anyone who read the blog would realize that the blog is about the author of the blog). All of the notability the author of the blog has gained has come from the blog. But I have re-edited it again so that it focuses mainly on the blog. Racheleigh13 (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2011 — Racheleigh13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

According to this, it was deleted. According to this, a Jill Smokler article was deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Jill Smokler page was deleted for copyright violation. I had rights from her to use the exact wording, but instead of her giving consent I figured it would be easier just to paraphrase everything. I changed it to Scary Mommy instead of Jill because the blog is Scary Mommy. But neither of them were erased per G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) to my knowledge. I only posted this article once. Racheleigh13 (talk) 1:45, 31 October 2011 — Racheleigh13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy delete per G11. — Abhishek ^Talk 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage about the blog is not very significant. This Baltimore Sun article does provides some coverage. I'd say that an article on Jill Smokler might be sustainable by reliable sources as the Baltimore Sun article is one piece of significant coverage about her. But I'd caution that those with a conflict of interest should be very careful about writing the article, and that copying material from Smokler's web site, even with permission, is likely a non-starter. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The external links in the body of the piece need to be removed in the now seemingly unlikely eventuality that this piece is retained. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Napolitano

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

Procedural nomination, article was deleted by Prod and contested at WP:REFUND. Original Prod rationale was:Seems to fail WP:DIRECTOR & apparent lack of coverage seems to fail WP:BIO. GB fan 17:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the credits listed meets WP:DIRECTOR. The fact that somebody claiming to be this person has edited the article a great deal leads me to believe credits meeting DIRECTOR are not to be found. In addition, none of the coverage I could find meets WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak delete - non-notable minor figure~~, falling under WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING~~. The COI is, of course, not itself an argument for deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- clarification if we can get better sources than the IMDb, I might change my mind.

Delete - I see him mentioned or quoted like in this article. But I don't see significant coverage about him in reliable sources, nor is there any evidence of significant awards that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Are you kidding this guy's directorial credits is a what's what of notable television series. The main (and probably) only reason why this article is getting any attention now is because Joenap (talk · contribs) is probably Mr. Napolitano himself. If he is that violates WP:COI, of course. Instead of deleting, cleaning up the article would be a much better option, See: WP:ATD. Quasy Boy 18:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which credits meet WP:DIRECTOR? Novaseminary (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article 3 in WP:DIRECTOR mentions "collective body of work", that is obviously not a problem for Mr. Napolitano. The directors he has worked with Brian De Palma, Ron Howard, Danny DeVito. How is he not notable? Quasy Boy 19:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A long list of credits shows that he is a working director. To establish notability, we'd need to see coverage in reliable sources (I found none), or something like a notable award (say an Emmy) for his directing, and there doesn't appear to be any based on his IMDB profile. With respect to his body of work, you left out the part about "that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" for which I would like to see reviews that call out the specific episodes he directed to be notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot more references to the article than there ever was before. Hopefully it is satisfactory now. Quasy Boy 04:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort, but I don't think so. The blurb in the Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors, Volume 1 comes somewhat close to meeting WP:GNG. But it is not very substantial and only one source. And the description of the source itself notes the book covers many must-be non-notable directors ("cites every director of stand alone long-form television programs: made for TV movies, movie-length pilots, mini-series, and feature-length anthology programs, as well as drama, comedy, and musical specials of more than 60 minutes. A much-needed reference that celebrates these often-neglected artists.") There is still not anything close to indicating the subject meets WP:DIRECTOR. The Yahoo and other listings are nothing more than lists of credits. Novaseminary (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time on Wikipedia if a television director like Mr. Napolitano had a large number of credits, his notability would not be under question. As a matter of fact I know a few television actors, directors and writers who a have credits up the ying-yang, but do not a Wikipedia entry until they have died. They are covered by a website reporting their death and an obituary is used as a source, an independent third party source, of course. So is that what we are going to have to do for Mr. Napolitano, wait till he dies until he gets independent coverage, than he can have an article? Quasy Boy 14:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your problem is with WP:N, not with how those of us !voting delete are applying it. Yes, once this person, or anyone, receives coverage to meet WP:GNG, and the article wouldn't violate some other policy or guideline, I would almost certainly !vote to keep an article about them. But, until they do, or until they (with RSs, if not RSs sufficient for GNG) meet one of the specialized N variants, there probably shouldn't be a WP article about them. Novaseminary (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seeming RS (4th paragraph) highlights the fact that episodic television directors do not play the same role as film directors. This seems to further highlight this fails WP:DIRECTOR. Novaseminary (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting article, but being in the business myself somewhat, I have to strongly disagree with your conclusion. The article appears more as an opinion piece that explains the differences in the types of directors, but does not state that one industry professional is automatically less inportant/notable than another. Stage directors are notable to stage. Film directors are notable to film. Television directors are notable to television. And the paragraph 5 of that article goes on to explain in more detail that television directors DO perform notable works and even gives examples of TV directors who then went on to films. Always nice to consider context. What has bearing is that a television director is under a greater stess to produce in a timely fashion than is a film director and might direct multiple episodes of a notable series in the same time as might a film director. Does having to do more in less time or being sometimes more disposable by a network make them non-notable? And worth noting is that television directors are be recipients of notable awards. See Directors Guild of America and Directors Guild of America Award... which are not limited in membership nor recognition to "only" film directors. While each has different work and different time constraints, they can be notable none-the-less. Just as with actors, we do not judge entertainment professionals by only the least of what they have accomplished, as even the most notable tv or film director began with inauspicious roots. We judge rather by the length and depth of a career. And by the by... Napolitano HAS directed films, not just episodic television.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The GNG is set to assist in determining notability through significant coverage when availble. SNGs such as WP:DIRECTOR are set to assist in determining notability when SIGCOV is not present, and with WP:DIRECTOR, a body of his notable projcts must be verifiable in reliable sources, with no requirement that the souces being used to verify must also be SIGCOV. The GNG and the SNGs are both parts of WP:N, intended to work together and not at odds. Failing the GNG does not mean one cannot pass an SNG, and conversely, failing an SNG does not mean one cannot pass the GNG. As Napolitano's multiple works CAN be verified and many of his works HAVE been themselves the recipients of SIGCOV, we have a meeting of the SNG. All the article requires is a couple sections on his more notabe projects and the recognition those projects received. That's an issue addressable through regular editing and does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're in the business... Now I know what QuasyBoy canvassed you here. So you admit her fails GNG. Clearly some of the shows he has directed episodes of have received coverage. But how does that meet DIRECTOR? Which prong? Are the shows "his" body of work? Would the lighting person on these shows meet DIRECTOR? I might buy it for producers who seem to stay with the show over the course of a sesion. But it is not clear television directors should fall under DIRECTOR at all. And I still don't think he meets it on its own terms. Further, he has not directed a feature motion picture, just two made for TV movies. He has been one asssistant director on several theater-released films. Novaseminary (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "in the business" as an actor in both film and television, a fact that has never been concealed. So what? Being a coordinator of Project Film, I ALWAYS check the film and actor delsorts, so he did not suggest I go anywhere or do anything I do not normally check as a matter of course. I was asked neutrally for my input and no request was made that I opine one way or the other... and had his argument been flawed I would have have been quite willing to opine a delete. Meeting the GNG is not a requiremenmt if meeting WP:CREATIVE, and a personal opinion that directors of film be treated as more notable than directors of other types of notable productions, seems an attempt to re-write WP:CREATIVE. AFD is the wrong forum to attempt to rewrite guideline, as at AFD, we apply the guidelines as currently existing and not as we "wish" them to be. Worth stressing is that the opinion piece you linked above does well in its illustrating that television directors have a great deal of notable creative control of their projects, and even with you wishing to concentrate on the least of his works (the showing of which is required in a properly comprehensive BLP), he DID direct notable FILM and TELEVISION production, and their being confined to the small screen does not make such productions non-notable. Incluson in Wikipedia is based upon verifability, and we apply guideline and policy to determine if a topic is verifiable and just notable enough for inclusion without limiting this encyclopedia to "only" the "most" notable. So, and with respects, it is your argument which is flawed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize he need not meet GNG. We all agree he does not. And I am not trying to change WP:CREATIVE. I don't think he meets that, either. You have never said, but seem to be arguing he meets #3. I don't think so. I don't think he "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work." His two TV movies don't come close. And his directing episodes of many notable TV shows doesn't either. He has not "created, or played a major role in co-creating" any of them, so far as we can tell. The shows' creators did that, maybe the producers, but probably not the directors. You would never refer to him as a creator or co-creator of Quantum Leap or the like, would you? As for coverage of his body of work as such, no sources do anything more than list the shows he has worked on. If there were sources that talked about his role in creating several shows, I'd buy it. But there are not. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're advocating that a television director cannot be notable, and that is a fallacy, as even the article you posted in an attempt to lessen consideration of their work actually supports the proposition that they do indeed many times have creative and artistic input into their productions. WP:CREATIVE does not state the such individuals must write and produce... else by that logic many film directors would be found non-notable. That's not how it works. By a television director having that creative input, they become part of a notable production's creation or co-creation. Not all do, no. But we are not discussing those that do not. His two TV movies have been the recipient of commentary and review, and in an industry (and this includes filmmaking) where directors are sometimes switched out as often a a pair of socks (as relected by his and many director's one-ofs), I find his directing 12 episodes of Quantum Leap, 2 episodes of The X-Files, 2 episodes of Picket Fences, 3 episodes of The Pretenders, 2 episodes of L.A. Doctors, 2 episodes of Dawson's Creek, 4 episodes of Boston Public, and 14 episodes of Strong Medicine to be indicative of his sometimes having more than a passing interest in the creation and artistic integrity of those notable series, even if not the writer or producer of those series. And when doing a search that removes the false positives created by a mobster with the same name, it is not difficult al all to see that this man has made it into the enduring record.[15][16][17][18][19] Most notable ever? Nope. Notable enough to be worthy of note for Wikipedia? Yes. And I request assistance in tracking down: (TV Zone (USA/UK) July 1996, Iss. 80, pg. 19-21, by: Steven Eramo, "Leaping Into The Unknown") where he is interviewed about his involvement with Quantum Leap, as the microfiche for this article is missing from my public library. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely not "advocating that a television director cannot be notable." I am giving my opinion that this television director does not meet WP:DIRECTOR. You admit that not all television directors have creative input. Because there are zero sources discussing the role he played as director in any of his credits, we have no way of knowing whether this director has had such input. Your finding that he has "more than a passing interest in the creation and artistic integrity of those notable series" might be true (but not supported by an RSs), but that still doesn't mean anyone in the know would consider him a creator or co-creator of any of these shows. Novaseminary (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from your first offering above of a external link, you seemed to be advocating just that, by what I believe to be an incorrect insistance that in the absence of SIGCOV a television director does not meet WP:CREATIVE through their being part of the creation of a notable television production. WP:CREATIVE does not say he must be the writer or producer, only that his involvement is significant... and I have already noted above those series where he had directed multiple episodes where his involvement can be considered significant enough through verifiability... not coverage. We disagree, let's not WP:BLUD this to death. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough evidence for masterpiece. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

??? Got this gem in right before getting blocked. Novaseminary (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user !voted here as part of a spate of disruptive edits for which the user was blocked a few minutes later. My point is that this !vote should be given zero weight, mostly because of the non sequitur element of the "argument". But the inapplicability of the argument is explained as part of the bad behavior of the editor. But if you think the argument is persuasive... Novaseminary (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM is still the consideration... as you now attempt to use the angst of a newcomer as an argument to delete. The closer will note whatever the closer wishes to note, WP:BLUD aside. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or implyed this poor !vote was reason to delete. Merely that it should receive zero weight in favor of keeping (or at all), for two reasons: 1) it is nonsensical, and 2) it was made in violation of WP:POINTY (which, I mention only to explain why it is non-sensical, and to highlight there is probably not a good argument just poorly stated). I bet you, Schmidt, agree that this !vote should receive zero weight, too. Or do you, Schmidt, think there is "Enough evidence for masterpiece." Novaseminary (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point per WP:ATTP, is that your irrelevently pointing out how a newcomer's angst resulted in his receiving a temp block does not address the issue being discussed. My opinion is that there is enough verifiability for this man's career to show his being just notable enough per policy and guideline to merit inclusion. As AFD is not a vote, a closer will know what arguments to count or discount and why... without the unneccessary "??? Got this gem in right before getting blocked" comment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:02, 5 November 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. Tone 13:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J30 protests

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

with just a few hundred internet hits, including twitter, demotix and indymedia, clearly not a term in use by the big public. Maybe worth a redirect to another place, but on its own not noteworthy. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cant find evidence of the term used in reliable sources and it's an unlikely search term. As it stands, the article is basically a dicdef. Pburka (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure this even warrants a mention in the 2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests article. The only source I can find which might qualify as reliable is the indymedia one, and I have a strong suspicion this source is not actually independent. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:14, 30 October 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedily as possible. One sentence "article". Doesn't even attempt to establish notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:38, 5 November 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 (G7) upon creator's blanking of the article (and subsequent ragequit). –MuZemike 21:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Larkin

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

Promotional article about a fanfilm maker of questionable notability. Films are all minor, with no significant coverage. Google search on "Run Rincewind Run" "Troy Larkin" shows only 96 unique results, none from reliable sources. The awards appear to have come from an event put on by the filmmaker, so these are hardly independent or worthy of consideration. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Run ricewind run is a notable film and it mentioned on many foreign sites. I already went thru this yesterday with an expert wiki editor that looks at new wiki pages, all these films are relevant and very big in the Australian underground. please do not delete this page as it links to many others pages inside wiki and is very informative to those looking at information pertaining to films and movies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunni1337 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 October 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 Ecclesiastical capital. Tone 13:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capital (religion)

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

Incomplete disambiguation page where content would not be suitable for Capital (disambiguation). Information already covered at Holy city. France3470 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. France3470 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not a proper disambig page at all, and no point in making it into an article as it is an incomplete and oversimplified content fork of Holy city. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ecclesiastical capital. Gobonobo ^T ^C 02:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Ecclesiastical capital. Clearly not a proper disambig page, and any purpose for which it could be useful is already better fulfilled by other articles. bd2412 T 12:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals recognized by the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council

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

non notable list of hospitals. Disputed Prod. noq (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Council needs to post this on their own site. Too narrow a topic for an encyclopedia. Also "WP is not a directory." Steve Dufour (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was created by me User:Subin.a.mathew a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in India as a part of clearing the list on List of institutions of higher education in Kerala to set to standard format as many users have been adding institutions names of the page and several other pages. The page should be checked for project status and uniform standards across all Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in India and deletion should only be after the members of the project decides to remove the page and reorder the list else where or prevent new users from adding more educational Institutions to the existing lists.Subin.a.mathew (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Can probably be included in something like List of hospitals in Kerala or some similar topic. Lynch 7 07:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of hospitals may be relevant, but not with the modifier that it is recognised by the KNMC. That would turn it into a directory. Of course, a list of hospitals could have identifiers that show which ones are recognised for training, but this article got it backwards. JFW | T@lk 10:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The scope of this is too specific, making this a directory. Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now This article seems to be an unforeseen consequence of the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:INEI#State_Lists_Format which led to this format of state-level education lists. This seems to be an spinoff list created from List of institutions of higher education in Kerala. I agree that in its present form, it does seem too specific, but maybe if notability of the topic is established, there wouldn't be a problem? If that isn't possible, the list should be moved to something less specific as suggested above.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Ax

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

Autobiography of a prolific, but not identifiably notable musician. Cited references are either primary sources, mentions in passing, or no mention at all. The award claimed does not appear to have any notability of itself (2011 was the first year it was awarded -- too soon to tell if it will become significant). Claims of "attention" from major labels are unverified, and even if verifiable, attention from a label is not the same as being signed by a label. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find sources that verify most of the information of the article. Many of the notability claims appear to hinge on connections to the 'The S.O.G. Crew', of which I am unable to find any substantial independent coverage. When searching for the awards, the majority of hits seem to promote Battle Ax - they seem strangely absent from independent online media reports. The same is true for the video awards Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, only 10 % of this article are about the articles subject, the christian rapper Battle Ax. The other 90 % are about a 'gospel hip hop group' he has formed The S.O.G. Crew. Claims for notability for both are sourced with social media entries (e.g. they weren't mentioned on MTV, there is only an entry on MTV's free blog) or non-notable labels (e.g. tunecore.com where the artist has to pay for beeing digitally distributed through itunes.com). Per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:IS.--Ben Ben (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After I left this comment on the author's talk page about perhaps contributing to this deletion discussion, the author blanked the page (several times, in fact). This might be taken as a realization that the page doesn't meet inclusion criteria and a desire to have the page deleted. I would propose that the page qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:20, 4 November 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. Tone 13:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Moncur

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

Contested PROD by IP user, no explanation given. Footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played at a fully-professional level yet. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 11:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 11:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for the subject to meet WP:GNG, and as he has not played in a fully pro league, fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:42, 31 October 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 deleted. as vandalism by two different administrators Secret ^account 07:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft affect

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

Unsourced pseudo-medical condition that appears to be something made up one day. Not verifiable or notable, if it exists at all. Contested prod so brought here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unsourced. No evidence of notability. The term "Minecraft effect" seems to have been invented on a web forum, and this Wikipedia article seems to be an attempt to publicise it. (Not to mention that, in the unlikely event that the article is kept, it should be renamed to correct the spelling.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Practically content-free. WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, obviously made up and created as an in-joke, unless we're supposed to believe a video game has made people get confused and "punch trees." Rnb (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. _noisy jinx ^huh? 19:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not to mention the creator cannot tell the difference between "affect" and "effect", in which the latter would be the correct usage. –MuZemike 20:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G3 as hoax →Σ τ c. 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that forum in the external links keeps it from a G3 vandalism unfortunately, though this is a WP:SNOW candidate. Secret ^account 06:59, 30 October 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. Tone 13:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grind Line

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

Redirect undone because it's supposedly in a "gray area". This looks like a slam dunk non-notable to me; it's been unsourced for over 2 years and it's nothing but hockey-fan cruft. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is plenty of coverage of this term [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. That Sports Illustrated regards this as one of "hockey's all-time classic lines" makes me inclined to say keep it. But that the term also applies to other lines e.g., [25], [26] gives me pause. Still, since the Detroit version is the original, and the one with lots of sources, I'd lean to keep, with redirecting as an alternative. Since there is an appropriate redirect target, I don't think deleting would be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources Rlendog identified have been added to reference some of the statements that are made in the article. Topic meets GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Detroit Red Wings#Grind Line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 28 October 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, Davewild (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The term is notable and a merger would have to take plenty of time in the details and rescue of all the information, and most often people who call for a merger do not follow up. --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources exist. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Jun 5, 1997 explains what it is and talks about it. [27] Just Google news search for the name of the team along with "Grid Line" and then sort through the results to find more if you aren't convinced yet this was something notable enough to be talked about in places that speak of such things. Dream Focus 17:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term is well documented, and the article should be kept for ice hockey fans and those who want to learn about it. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anything this is a slam dunk keep. Quite possibly one of the most famous lines in hockey history. There are lines I would vote delete on if they had articles but this certainly isn't one of them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Garth Snow. Patken4 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman vs. Kamen Rider

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

Of the three sources used on this article, one is a blog post of questionable reliability and another is a primary source. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This television movie fails Wikipedia's general notabiltiy guideline. Neelix (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This was certainly notable in 1993 when it first came out, and Google certainly supports that. However, the age of the media makes it difficult to retrieve sources that show that. Most of the recent press regards its first time BD/DVD release, and that should be enough to show that it is of some note.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following entities have focused on the film as of late: Mainichi Shimbun, Sankei Shimbun, Sankei Sports, Open Computer Network, Yuukan Fuji (Zakzak), one of the official websites, and one English language website.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - Notability requires verifiable evidence. As Wikipedia's notability guidelines state, "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." This article has existed for more than four years, and in all that time, only one possibily reliable, secondary source has surfaced. Unless a significant amount of information is found on this topic in reliable, secondary sources, this article should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the fact it is being re-released on Blu-ray and DVD for the shows' 40th and 45th anniversaries? And there is evidence it's just that all of the evidence regarding its notability happened long before the proliferation of the Internet. And I doubt that I'll be able to find stuff from the kids magazines from 1993.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm with Neelix; so far, the evidence to Keep comes down to a WP:ITEXISTS argument. If no reliable sources for an article can be produced, it cannot be kept. Ravenswing 17:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources are available. Just none from the original release. I have just added four more references to the article, all regarding the press surrounding the upcoming/recent BD and DVD release.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think Ryulong has already found enough references to prove notability. Sanspo is a major national newspaper in Japan and ZakZak is a major news website. One can also argue from related notability: both Ultraman and Kamen Rider are internationally famous characters and this is their only meeting. Michitaro (talk) 01:51, 26 October 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, Davewild (talk) 09:24, 29 October 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 Telugu-language films#2010s. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Telugu films of 2010s

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

It should be instead a category. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not a valid reason for deletion per WP:CLN. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand. Have you got a policy behind your deletion nomination? This is a content-page list, linking to the other years within the decade and is an aid to navigation, so therefore keep. Lugnuts (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but WP:CRYSTAL seems to be a little perfect for this article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts is quite correct... and in actuality both policy (WP:FUTURE) and guideline (Manual of Style/Lists) specifically allow for such lists... most specially as in a matter of a few weeks weeks we will be two years into the 2010 decade. Certainly the list should not contain films for years that have not yet happened... but that's a no-brainer, and does not somehow mandate deletion of a proper and growing list that is specifically set to deal with the decade in which we find ourselves. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Telugu-language films#2010s which this page is a duplication of anyway. No need to have two pages with no content leading to lists by years. Ravendrop 12:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to already existing List of Telugu-language films#2010s which properly exists per policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:10, 31 October 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. postdlf (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Henderson

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

Minor local politician. Scanlan (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. No vote. County executives for counties of this size are notable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN would suggest otherwise, unless significant coverage in independent reliable sources can be demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- She qualifies as a major local politician who has received significant press coverage, as evidenced by the dozen newspaper citations. I would say that a top-level county official is as notable as a top-level city official. In other words, the executive of a county of this size is as notable as the mayor of a city of comparable size, and we would definitely keep the mayor of Fresno or Kansas City. But population isn't the determinant; press coverage is. And there has definitely been enough press coverage. -LtNOWIS (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say "the executive of a county of this size...". According to the article the subject was an executive, not the excecutive, so would be the equivalent of a member of a city council, not a mayor. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, it appears I misunderstood then. Although it would appear there are only three commissioners, she wasn't in the top spot. I'll abstain and see what other people say. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - County commissioners in Pennsylvania are both legislators and executives for the county, perhaps a challenge to the understanding for those who don't have this peculiar form of government, with two of the three possible branches of government combined in the same three elected officials. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 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, Davewild (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The article is very well sourced. --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic passes the Notability (people) guideline section: WP:BASIC. Several reliable newspaper sources in the article may be combined to demonstrate topic notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep County commissioners of large counties in Pennsylvania are important even when in the minority of the three commissioners. This official is well documented. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeshine (band)

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

this band does not appear to satisfy wp:music. awards are not major. having a notable actor as part of the band does not make them notable. the article has a lot of references but none are significant coverage in independent reliable sources. convention announcements are not independent. kroq ref is just them talking about themselves. facebook and twitter are not reliable. Boston Bastard Brigade shows no sign of being reliable. AMP Magazine shows no sign of being reliable and the coverage is trivial. I only found passing mentions, nothing significant. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Merge to Johnny Yong Bosch opposed to deletion. A good amount of the band's information could be summarized on Bosch's page as it already is. FallenWings47 (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 22 October 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, Davewild (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Save Eyeshine

please edit and leave comments below mine. keep a backup of your comment

Matt Osorio

Eyeshine should have it's name in history for future musicians as inspiration to not give up when others are trying to discourage or intimidate them. In my opinion I had the honor to speak with them. My whole perspective on job, intern, and career searching changed. When you are rejected take all the disapointments, discouragments and transform it into motivation for fuel to keep you going and you can eventually succeed. It just matters how far you are willing to go. I am still on my road of discouragments but I am looking for a detour. And that knowledge is what I gained from talking to each of the band members. It's not about being popular, But connecting with people, and talking to the fans. Please Wikipedia don't make the mistake of erasing this unique part of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattvp13 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Mattvp13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

COMMENT If you're really interested in saving this Wikipedia page, the best thing you can do for it is finding articles ABOUT Eyeshine and adding the CITED information to the page to make it more credible. I myself made most of the page as you see it now and I made it that way by adding information from articles I had read about them. FallenWings47 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia is not here for the purpose you're trying to use it for. We are an encyclopedia first and foremost. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deeply non-notable band; should have been deleted the last time. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Newell

Matt is totally correct, the band has come a long way, it has churned out several albums and has worked equally as hard as multiple other bands out there. You say they are non-notable? What about Drive-By Argument? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_Argument) Yes, they played T in The Park: once. What makes them notable? Their page shouldn't have a place here if Eyeshine doesn't. Also, I don't have anything against Drive-By Argument, just an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.25.48 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC) — 92.22.25.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but Article X's presence or absence can't be used to justify Article Y. Just because we have a noncompliant page doesn't mean it's okay to make noncompliant pages; it just means administrators (of whom there are proportionately very few) haven't gotten around to deleting it yet. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - EYESHINE has either made the finals or won several independent band competitions http://www.ampmagazine.com/10956/amp-unsigned-band-contest-part-iv/ http://www.987fm.com/pages/rockstar09/page-rockstar09vidsnew3.php. They have a devoted local following, have performed all over the country and even done some shows internationally. EYESHINE is poised to follow other local area bands that recently shot to stardom with their edgy sound. Yes, Johnny Yong Bosch, band co-founder and lead singer has a prominent career as a voice and on-camera actor, but this is separate from EYESHINE the band. Merging the two pages doesn't make sense. Other than Bosch himself, there is no overlap or common thread between these two entities. Moreover, EYESHINE IS a notable enough indy band to warrant its own article. They have six albums on iTunes and a behind-the-scenes web series, The EYESHINE Experience [28] garnering thousands of views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TweetLvr (talk • contribs) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC) — TweetLvr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hits on YouTube do not correlate to notability, and nor do name-drops. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 19:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable band. Little significant coverage, minor awards of questionable notability (and mostly nominations only, at that). MikeWazowski (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zia McCabe

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

Not notable; no notable articles about her independent of The Dandy Warhols. Lachlanusername (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep found this. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/23/1053585695927.html 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to merge with Dandy Warhols. Couldn't find extra and/or significant coverage of her independently. 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article you posted above isn't about her, it's about the Dandy Warhols... --Cavarrone (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or 'Merge and Redirect to Dandy Warhols. Little/no significant coverage of the individual on his own merits.--Cavarrone (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zia is a female... 11coolguy12 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Dandy Warhols. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she might be only famous as a member of a band but she's received fairly substantial independent coverage 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:26, 20 October 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, Rcsprinter (speak) 10:04, 21 October 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 07:24, 29 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Fowler

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

This article of a TV fictional character of All My Children lacks notability establishment, especially from third-party publications. TV.com is cited, but I am uncertain about its reliability because it is user-submitted, like IMDB. This article is written as a well-written entry, but the whole context may not have been referenced properly. The fact that the show is cancelled doesn't help matters. It was previously PRODded; the PROD was improperly contested by IP editor who believes that this character is "notable". ~~--Gh87 (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I vote delete. --Gh87 (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Right now there is only one citation, as the TV.com reference was removed as unreliable and user-submitted. As of this time, the whole article is all plot and short of perspectives outside fiction. Some people say: the fictional character may be notable, even if the show is cancelled, such as Sam Malone and Diane Chambers of Cheers and Jerry Seinfeld of Seinfeld. Same thing would have done for this character; unfortunately, this article very little improved before this AfD has been relisted recently. To condensate the plot, I must remove the irrelevant to this character; I could not tell which part is irrelevant. But the notability, significant coverage, and awareness from third-party and independent sources come first before condensating the plot. I barely understand how this character's role as either major or minor can suffice notability. Fiction alone is too insufficient to me, even if a plot summary is too long, and the description of portrayers of this character won't help suffice as I'm afraid. This article needs to be more than and far from resembling as one of the featured and good articles of EastEnders, Coronation Street, and their characters. ~~If very densed improvement doesn't happen soon, it may appear to have better chances of merging, redirecting, or deleting. --Gh87 (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)~~ The fact that this article hasn't improved from the plot-only state but has stayed this way which could violate WP:PLOT influences me to think: the fictional character is not sufficiently notable in and out of the soap opera coverages. I haven't seen a lot of news coverages for this character, especially in television-oriented and local news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh87 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 16 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The character is quite notable and is well-known and has correct and valuable information. At most, it should be redirected to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters in order to retain its value.Casanova88 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and the content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work, unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character, sufficiently sourced. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only cited sentence is of her occasional appearances. The rest of the article needs more; there is still a lot of in-universes. --Gh87 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I say keep, she was a major, pivotal character, especially in the return of her father Jesse, and has been apart of other really touching, strong, pivotal storylines. She's a major character. And once again, show is not cancelled. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 12:56PM 13 October 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:12, 15 October 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, Rcsprinter (message) 10:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major characters in major shows should have articles. That rule is not a formal guideline, because one or two stubborn people in the discussions over the last few years stonewalled against it, or any compromise whatsoever. So we unfortunately have to go case by case--any compromise, even one more restrictive than I would like, would be better than the current situation , with half of AfD devoted to these discussions. . But it what we usually do, and its what we should do here. WP:PLOT is properly interpreted as referring to the total Wikipedia coverage of a work, as often done by very unsophisticated editors here for minor fiction. Obviously any break-out article about anything primarily relating to plot or characters will necessarily be about the plot. (It would of course be easy enough to introduce minor material about such things as the exact timings of her scenes, but that's the sort of fan details we usually do not include. Does anyone here really advocate adding it, or think it would improve the article? DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 21 October 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 07:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I have relisted this discussion after overturning a non-admin closure following a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 22. Sandstein 07:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

commentLooking back, the argument that because it has not yet been improved it cannot be improved in the original nomination strikes me as particularly without basis in policy; the correct statement is just the opposite, NO DEADLINE. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 5 November 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. seriously guys, the meta consensus us clear, a series of organised lists either by alphabet or decades is the way but a single year with no content. This is nobrainer. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coronation Street characters (1991)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article contains no context, only a link to another page. The entire batch "Coronation Street Characters" pages should be grouped via decade because of lack of context. Touch Of Light (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you proposing a merge by decade or deletion here? There doesn't appear to be any discussion re. merging on the article's talk page, or for that matter any discussion at all there. Perhaps starting a discussion at Talk:Lists of Coronation Street characters would be appropriate.--Michig (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Merger is not performed by deletion. Warden (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as far as the keep vs. delete option goes, although I entirely agree that a better presentation of these characters is a reasonable editorial decision. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete. Are we talking about the same article? I'm going to copy/paste the entire content of the article into this comment. Here we go:

That's it, but for templates (and {{Main}} is a template too!). Surely there's a better option, and surely this person wasn't the only character in this season. I'll admit I'm not familiar with the show, but if the cast in this year matched that of a previous (or subsequent) year, then add a note to that list with "The cast returned for the 1991 series, but for the addition of Raquel Watts and the departure of Whomever." And then you add your profile and your main article link and move on. If it's just gonna be one name, then that's not sufficient. It's possible merging/redirecting other series articles may be prudent, but that's out of scope for this debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of any other options. A merge is impossible, because this "list" contains nothing whatsoever, and a redirect is inappropriate because it is a highly unlikely search term. I'm amazed that organizing our presentation of this subject matter by removing a useless empty page is not considered a reasonable editorial decision by some of the above keep !voters and I suggest this is just an automatic aversion to typing the dreaded "d word" than a genuine evaluation of the page in question. Seriously, this one is a no-brainer. Reyk _YO! 21:01, 3 November 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. Tone 13:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Alonzo

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

A music executive. President and founder of Ararga Entertainment Group. No refs in the article establish nobility as they are either from his company, written by him (ref 5 from radionotas) or briefly mention him. I'm unable to find any independent, reliable sources, but he does have a common name. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This was initially proposed as an article for creation [29] and was declined, but was added by the article's creator just minutes after being declined. There also appears to be a potential COI since the article creator is named after Alonzo. Of the reference links provided, none of them are what wikipedia would consider to be reliable, being mostly puff pieces (one of which doesn't seem to mention him at all), company rosters, and generally non-noteworthy links where he's only briefly mentioned. I was unable to find any reliable links on google. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Google News shows no references to this individual, although he does have a relatively common name. Pburka (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough WP:RS or sufficient coverage; really not that notable per WP:PEOPLE. In addition, possible COI here. (see creator) HurricaneFan25 | talk 16:45, 3 November 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. Keep arguments actually support deletion - i.e. no sources found. Assertions of notabiity are to be avoided Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Supra (shoes)

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

Company with no evidence of notability. Poorly referenced. Most claims for fame are by association with others.--Dmol (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. All I can find are press releases. Pburka (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems pretty neutral to me and not like its written as an advertisement. Though the article is short and could be referenced more thoroughly, there is enough substancial material for it to stay and be improved upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguo30 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Mguo30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Note that the above keep vote is from the writer of the article and they have not worked on any other article.--Dmol (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited. It is now more well organized and more sources have been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mguo30 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not well sourced. Of the 19 listed "references", 16 of them are from the company and the other 3 are from an industry publication.--Dmol (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have tried to find appropriate notable citations and I admit they are weak, but the company has some traction with the skateboarding community. This article will improve over time and we have lots of room here on Wikipedia. I have no ax to grid. I am a 51 year old who does not skateboard or wear their shoes. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 14:00, 1 November 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 Genetically modified food. Tone 13:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology-derived Foods

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

Non-encyclopedic essay. PROD declined. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, already covered at GMO foods article. just an essay.(mercurywoodrose)76.232.9.165 (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not unsourced. It use parenthetical referencing, which is acceptable per WP:CITE. The newbie tried to apply ref formatting and screwed up. This clear from [30] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to genetically modified food. The expressions appear to be synonymous. According to [31] (Health Canada): "Foods that have been modified by genetic manipulation, also known as genetically modified foods, GM foods, genetically engineered foods or biotechnology-derived foods". --Edcolins (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This was initially submitted to AfC, but I guess the author ran out of patience waiting for a review there. It was eventually reviewed and blanked as duplicate of this article after it had already been copied to main space. [32] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to genetically modified food and leave a note on the talk page there. There may be some useable material in here worth merging. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to genetically modified food; they seem to be almost the same thing. →Σ τ c. 01:46, 30 October 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hellhole (Witch Hats song)

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

just another single. no charting, awards ,covers. lacks coverage. nothing satisfying WP:NSONGS. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 22 October 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched long and hard for any scrap of notability but I just couldn't find anything. Not even a brief mention in a news article. Every link I click on is either a promotional video posted (presumably) by the band or a link to purchase the single. The band appears to be notable but this single is not. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - absolutely no indication that this is a notable song. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 2 November 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Nuzzolese

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

A model and actor. Acting experience is two music videos and a cameo in a movie. Alot of refs out there are on social website about his appearance in a Katy Perry music video. Unable to find any independent, reliable sources. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. Pburka (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete went hunting for sources, came up empty, concluded non-notable. Yunshui 雲水 11:14, 2 November 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 postdlf (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust Clause

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

A completely demented fantasia that even lacks the coherence to be a hoax. I liked the bit about Ferris wheels, though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incomprehensible. Pburka (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very bad writing joined to incompetent research. Rjensen (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
G1 speedy delete or redirect to Sanity Clause. Geez, I can't remember the last time I harvested crops of citizens or "harbored crops, felons, and pyrite". Aah, those were the good old days. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utter nonsense. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "trust clause" is a term used very often in law, either if it's anti-trust or for estates/inheritance so the term is notable. Unfortunately this hoax isn't an article, so it's better off to delete and rewrite from scratch. Secret ^account 06:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. This title should probably be redirected to Trust (law). Cheers! bd2412 T 03:03, 31 October 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, WP:CSD#G11: a performance driven advertising website that features ongoing deals for localized subscribers - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

PayLessNow, LLC

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

Minor local firm: all references are PR or derived from PR DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising per WP:CSD#G11. Pburka (talk) 15:49, 29 October 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, WP:CSD#G11: an online group-buying website that uses a Performance Driven Advertising website to feature ongoing deals for localized subscribers - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dealavue

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

relatively minor local firm--all refs are PR or dervived from PR or do not mention the company. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Advertising per WP:CSD#G11. Pburka (talk) 15:50, 29 October 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 and redirect to Community of interest. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interest network

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

This is a Personal essay that has no reliable sources so is unverifiable. Contested prod, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references, so looks like WP:OR violation. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no refs, blatant original essay. hmssolent\Let's convene 05:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of plagiarism (Copyright violation) but it's a pure ESSAY, OR, and obviously no References to Verify. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to community of interest. The expressions community of interest, common interest network, common-interest network, community of interest network and interest network appear synonymous. --Edcolins (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The suggestion of redirecting to community of interest is a good one. Thanks for finding the right target article, Edcolins. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no objection to a redirect, but community of interest is also an unsourced stub. Work there for anyone interested... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was about to say exactly the same thing as Chiswick Chap. The sources for community of interest are two articles by the same academic. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added two sources (to community of interest). They might not be the best sources, but this may incite others to come and improve the article. --Edcolins (talk) 09:56, 29 October 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.