Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 April 13

< 12 April	14 April >

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 keep. One two three... 20:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speechless (Michael Jackson song)[edit]

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

A non-notable Michael Jackson track that was never released as a single. I suggest it be redirected and protected to stop recreation. Pyrrhus16 23:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources to the article. Speechless is one of Jackson's most well-known songs, even above some of his actual singles. It should have it's own article as much as the next song. Silver seren^C 04:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Speechless" is perhaps Jackson's least well-known song of the Epic Records era, and certainly not more well-known than any of his singles. The slivers of information here can easily be merged into Invincible (album). Pyrrhus16 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an album track and not notable. Merge to album. - eo (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is it a rule that, if it's an album track, then it's always not notable? Silver seren^C 15:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect it to discography or appropriate album. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!}
Keep, yeah, Michael Jackson is a great artist and should be respected even in Wikipedia, also this article only needs a bit of drafting of several experts to pass "stub" to "start". --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a better reason for retaining this article? That MJ was "a great artist" is not good enough and we should not keep every non-notable article regarding him simply to be respectful. Pyrrhus16 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe his argument is that, in reference to WP:MUSIC, the article can be expanded to Start class with some work and, because of that, doesn't fail the music guidelines in that regard. Combine that with the coverage and it really does look like the song is notable. This reference for example, which is already in the article, has a significant amount of coverage about the making of the song. Silver seren^C 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song fails WP:NMUSIC. It does not matter whether this could be made into a skimpy little start-class article. There is not significant coverage of the song. Pyrrhus16 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not significant enough coverage? Silver seren^C 22:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is one tabloid-toned section that gives a sliver of information that can easily be merged to the album article. It appears to me that you do not know what significant/comprehensive coverage constitutes. Pyrrhus16 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I believe I know very well what it means. Silver seren^C 22:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not give significant detail regarding the song. The sliver of information can be merged to the album article, and should, per WP:MUSIC: "[A] separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Pyrrhus16 23:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, as was already stated above, this article can be expanded beyond a stub-class level article. Silver seren^C 23:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key part of the sentence is "a reasonably detailed article", which this will never be. There are only slivers of information, which can be mentioned in the album article. Where is the information on the composition? What key is it played in? What themes does it explore? How was it significant to the music world? This is not a suffciently detailed article and, with the sources available, never will be. Pyrrhus16 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'll have to take it bit by bit and see what I can do about sources. The composition of it is already in the sources, that's a given, the source I gave you right up there is about how he made it and what for. As for the keys and sheet music, you can find that here. Silver seren^C 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet music is a primary source and has been questioned for its reliability. See here. It does not matter if you can add a couple more sources, it will never be detailed enough to be a standalone article. All the information can be merged to the album article, and should per WP:MUSIC. You appear to be far too happy to add a couple of sources to non-notable articles up for deletion, ask for it to be kept, and then toddle off to the next article up for deletion, leaving the previous one in a pitiful state. This is damaging the project, especially when there is an alternative place for the information that is in an article that will never be sufficiently detailed or notable. Pyrrhus16 10:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why always delete articles it's the first solution which comes to your mind. Although fails whatever it fails give always six months to either article. If this hasn't been edited on several weeks, you should redirect it to a proper article. If that doesn't work you can nominate it. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that you know it does not meet the notability criteria but we should just keep it anyway because a lot of articles get deleted and this track (released on a 2001 album) may become more notable in the next six months? This song is not notable now, nine years after the track was first heard. It is WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the song may become more notable in however many months. You have not given a sufficient justification for this article to be kept. Pyrrhus16 01:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "This song is amazing and will be a worldwide hit". I never heard this song. I just saying expand the article could take time. Why you didn't redirect Tabloid Junkie before start expandind it? Why Pyrrus didn't redirect D.S. (song) when he created the article? Both song failed WP:NSONGS at time when both were created (and still failing "notability"). Sotty I chose Keep and I still saying keep. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not about what other stuff exists, but seeing as we are on the topic... "Tabloid Junkie" is independently notable because it is covered in numerous sources that provide ample information on its background, composition, recording, and critical reception. The same is true for D.S. (song), which is also noted for being an attack on Tom Sneddon and a song that was frequently heard during Jackson's 2005 trial. I'm still waiting on a good reason to keep this article... Pyrrhus16 02:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article has enough reference and an interesting enough backround story to be justifiable. It is one of my favorite songs of all time and is the third most popular song from Invincible on iTunes (After You Rock My World and Heaven Can Wait). OttomanJackson (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The little information that is there can be merged to the album article, as is the process for ALL non-notable album tracks for any artist. That the song is your favourite is irrelevant to this discussion. Pyrrhus16 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that move from single because cation to is promotional, that means it is not for sale therefore should not have the infobox single, clear example can be Stairway to Heaven or Better Than You, If not me that will change. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, the article looks a lot better with images. And, hah, it is a single! Silver seren^C 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song is promotional, like "Polly", --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a promotional single, not a proper single and it does not matter what the article looks like with a few images. It still fails the notability requirements for music. Pyrrhus16 10:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that I've verified that the song was released as a promotional single and reliable sources are being used in the article with a reasonable amount of information, I think this song should have it's own article. Crystal Clear x3 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional singles are not proper singles and all of the information in the article can be merged to Invincible (Michael Jackson album). Many of the sources used in the article are not reliable and the song has not received significant, independent, third-party commentary. It is discussed in relation to the album, not on its own. It fails WP:NSONGS. Pyrrhus16 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MTV said he performed the song at a notable event [1]. Hard to filter out the horde of Google news results for just the song Speechless, and not all the many times people used the word speechless for something other than the song, with Michael Jackson's name in the news as well. Dream Focus 06:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. WP:SONG states, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Notability for the song is not established and it is looking like it will never progress beyond stub status. NSONG also says 'most songs are not notable' At present there is nothing in the article other than it has been featured on an album and a film (however notable that film and artist are - but remember, notability cannot be inherited, not even by a song!) Wikipedia would not lose one iota of information if this article became a redirect to the album and/or film, Wikipedia and the coverage of the Michael Jackson and the film would actually improve by such actions. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already far, far above stub status, so that first point is irrelevant.
There is far more in the article than just that notability. The sources establish notability. Wikipedia would not lose a lot of information if a number of articles were redirected to related parent articles, but those parents articles would become far too cluttered. The amount of information currently in the article that is clearly sourced shows its notability and also that it would be extremely complicated and cumbersome to merge all of it to a parent article.
Furthermore, the song actually works with WP:NSONG. It meets the basic notability guideline, with significant coverage about it. The artist and musician of the song is clearly notable, circa Michael Jackson. While it is true that singles (promotional singles included) are not generally notable, they are considered such if they have significant coverage, which this article has. Like I said in the beginning of this comment, the article is long enough. Also, it has been performed by various notable musicians. Now that I think of it, we have yet to add that in there, but there are sources about it. I'll have to get to that. Anyways, that covers the entirety of WP:NSONG and the notability requirements therein for songs. Feel free to comment in reply and say which parts of what i've said here are wrong, but please explain in detail why they are wrong if you are going to do so, so we can see if they can be fixed. Thanks. Silver seren^C 07:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point arguing about the size of the article, it has certainly grown since I made the post above. The real debate is whether the song is notable. As I said notability is not inherited so whether it is recorded by Michael Jackson, the Pope or Johnny Unknown is irrelevant. I now make a comment regarding the references supplied, because at no time is notability established :-

Salon: Confirmation of inspiration for lyrics (now a dead link). All songs are “inspired” by something, what makes this notable?
NME, Speechless is a Grease finale gut-wallop of a ballad with a choir of heavenly Michaels hovering on high” This is a one-line review, not an establishment of notability.
Liner notes: References?
Vibe: Repetition of inspiration for lyrics.
Music notes : Sight of sheet music.
Megan Turner : “Among the songs played to the Sony execs last week were "Speechless.” Confirmation the song exists, not notability.
Discogs & Allmusic: Directory entries only
MTV: “There's a performance of "Speechless" from Invincible before the scene cuts to a Culver City, California” Now we know it is in a film, but is every song in a film automatically notable?

What I will say though, I like the part of the article that covers the music and lyrics, key signature etc. It's the reason I sat for a couple of days before commenting at all. It's a shame that all song articles don't cover this point (but it still doesn't establish notability!)

I am not going to respond any more on this debate, I have made my point, if you hadn't asked me to I wouldn't have commented again. There's far too many notable songs where the articles are in desperate need of improvement without having a Wiki-battleground over every song. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im Partial to Delete because i have a pet peeve for articles about songs that have not charted but i am also okay to a Redirect STAT- Verse 00:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what you're saying is that you are automatically prejudiced against articles about uncharted songs and also have no valid policy-based reason for your vote? Silver seren^C 05:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having reliable references.

Harel | Talk to me 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is proved by it's numerous references. Honestly, if this was the worst article about a song on WP we would be pretty well off. I don't understand the excitement around this particular article. – IbLeo ^(talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically Feminine-Feminist Narrative[edit]

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

Contested prod. Essay, WP:OR GregJackP (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as or. the subject of the feminine qualities of female written narratives, and feminist perspectives on such narratives, is notable, but this doesnt consist of an article on this subject. and, by the way, its wrong, see james tiptree/alice sheldon. she fooled EVERYBODY.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fundamentally unencyclopedic content, being an essay. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Foster[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Has some coverage in AVN and XBIZ, but not quite enough to meet WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll agree with Epbr123. The AVN and XBIZ stories are not intellectually independent of each other so I count that as one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that she qualifies for PORNBIO #3, in terms of "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature", considering that Not the Cosbys XXX is described in a number of the references as being the most successful interracial porn movie ever. Silver seren^C 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reference did you see it in? The closest reference from the article I found was "And the 1980s are exactly what director Will Ryder had in mind when he created what many are predicting will become the most successful interracial sex movie ever." This reference is also a press release on a site (thepornoreporter) that may be unreliable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does ThePornoReporter say that it's a press release? I can't find that anywhere. Silver seren^C 01:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise it as a press release because I regularly receive the producer's press releases through email. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um...okay. Can you prove that? Silver seren^C 04:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of proving "predicting will become the most successful interracial sex movie ever" is a press release when it doesn't even verify that it is the most successful interracial movie ever? Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word for word copy here; designated as a press release. [2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at the dates, you would notice that The Porno Reporter posted their article the day before that. Can you actually trust the word of a blog over it? Silver seren^C 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahuh. Thepornoreporter is also a blog so I am not sure what your point is? If I go through my deleted folder in my email box and find that press release, you probably would still ask for more proof. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does The Porno Reporter say that it's a blog? From what I can tell, it doesn't say that anywhere. If you are going to make a statement that a source is false, you need to prove it. Silver seren^C 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to show that the film is the "most successful interracial sex movie ever". You haven't done it by giving me a press release that states a prediction. I haven't said anything about whether the source is false, just that it is a press release. Thepornoreporter is a self-published blog. You may have to assume good faith as an editor that I know all of this because I am a member of the adult industry press. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found some rather lengthy reviews of the film in question in X Critic, Adult DVD Talk, RogReviews, AVN that do not appear to be simple press releases. And I even found reviews of the sequel in which she also starred... Not The Cosbys XXX 2 Adult DVD Talk and X Critic. Certainly, these are not the New York Times nor Washington Post, but they do discuss the film(s) at length and dwell on the inter-racial aspects. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-Critic and ADT reviews are consumer based - similar to a review on Amazon. Rogreviews is self-published, although Rog is considered an expert reviewer. AVN reviews are trivial in depth. None of the reviews can establish whether the movie is groundbreaking, iconic, or blockbuster status. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Morbidthoughts: Thank you. But as one could hardly expect to find mainstream national reviewers reviewing porn film, where then would one look to find sources considered suitable enough for porn films? And toward the X-Critic review... it does seem that X-Critic has an editorial staff,[3] and the review's author, staffmember Don Houston appears to have at least 4,595 reviews to his credit.[4] So in considering the editorial staff, and the author's apparent expertise, perhaps his review is worth considering? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That staff listing is an aggregate listing of people who has submitted reviews and blogs for the website and the credibility and expertise of many of these people are unknown. Sure Don Houston may be an expert reviewer, but how does a review that is published within a week of a movie's release (many times even before the release) establish that is a movie blockbuster and iconic. Maybe it can determine whether something is groundbreaking but I am very wary of the usual hyperbole throw around by the adult industry. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed... and after the recent and stressful RFA, I am loathe to offer anything that does not seem at least worth considering. So where and how might we determine just how credible their editoral processes might be? Or determine the credentials or expertise of Don Houston as a reviewer? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. Hipocrite (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why the coverage is not substantial enough? Silver seren^C 15:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because there isn't any? The only coverage currently listed are all press releases. Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Schmidt's comment above. Silver seren^C 23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding to the sources above about the inter-racial "Not The Cosbys XXX" and "Not The Cosbys XXX 2"... it seems that not "all" her coverage is press releases. While some certainly are releases, we can ignore those and concentrate on the coverage that appears to appoach WP:GNG... in industry sources Adult Video News (1), Xbiz News (1), Xbiz News (2), Adult Video News (2), Black Adult Magazine (apparently itself souced back to AVN 1 above) and yes, even the disputed The Porno Reporter... which appears to be an edited news digest and not a blog... and mainstream sources La Talk Radio (1), La Talk Radio (2). If the GNG is met, is there a guideline mandate that PORNBIO must be met as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The standard ARS tactic of refbombing with rote google searches is depreciated. There's no coverage of the actor in any of your googlespam. Hipocrite (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hipocrite: Actually, there are parts of notability guideline that specifically allow that notability can be inherited... through one's work, one's team, one's awards, one's discoveries, etc. WP:NOTINHERITED clarifies just how this works and shares exceptions and applications. I have patiently asked questions in trying to determine if I should support deletion or not. You attacks against a group of 347 contributors and assumptions of bad faith encourage a battlefield mentality, and as such are disruptive to civil dicussion. Please stop. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? All of those links are about her. Silver seren^C 04:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. this is not, this is not, and all the other "articles" are transparently the same press release reprinted over and over. Hipocrite (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In comparing various reviews, it can be seen that like reviews about any film, they discuss the topic, consider the same information, make note of the same plots, but are not all "transparently the same press release reprinted over and over". Your misleading editors is not conducive to civil discussion. For example, "This" news story you call a press release specifically asserts "XBIZ News Report by Todd Hunter". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I was pretty clear in saying that was "not about her," not that that was a press release. Try to keep up. Hipocrite (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hipocrite: I've caught up. It was User:Silver seren who said they were about her, not me... at no time did I say or imply that they were. I was responding imediately above to your statement to User:Silver seren "transparently the same press release reprinted over and over", in error thinking you were yourself responding to my ongoing discussion with User:Morbidthoughts about some films she was in as first brought up by User:Silver seren. If the films themselves could be considered "iconic" or "groundbreaking" enough, they might then have allowed her to pass PORNBIO#3. No more. No less. Too many tracks through this station. Wrong que. Sorry for any confusions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hipocrite sums it up pretty well. AniMate 06:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per hippocrite. It's also worth reminding people that the BIO guideline has this to say about the "additional guidelines:" Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. That is to say pass or failure of pornbio (this person in my opinion clearly does not but i don't care to argue about it) is no guarantee that something should be included (or conversely, excluded). What should guide us is the existence/absence of independent, high quality in-depth sources such that the construction of a neutral, verifiable, and proper encyclopedia biography could be written on a living person. Such sources do not exist in this case.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:PORNSTAR. --Morenooso (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with appreciations to per User:Bali ultimate for his elucidation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had a leading role in two major productions from Hustler, the Cosby parodies. Dream Focus 06:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart (anthropology)[edit]

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

I am an anthroplogist and this makes no sense at all, The talk page is filled with people confused as i am. I frankly was into PROD, but decided this was better Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I am not mistaken, this seems to be a synthesis of the religious beliefs of some ancient cultures (for example, see Ancient Egypt#Religious beliefs for one of them). PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks sufficient context to allow other editors to meaningfully improve the article. Also appears to be at least partly original research and may qualify as fundamentally unencyclopedic content. Finally, it appears to in whole or in part duplicate information at Heart (symbol) and as such it represents an impermissible POV fork. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a mix of WP:ESSAY and gibberish - it really is hard to work out what it is supposed to be -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giggleberries[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable definition, no sources provided. Only reference that was on point was the Urban Dictionary. GregJackP (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fair enough, I can't find any evidence myself that this would be notable enough for inclusion. Truthsort (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a non-notable neologism. — Rankiri (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, fails notability guidelines Chzz ► 17:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chora (Programming Language)[edit]

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

no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "No assertion of notability" is only a deletion reason if you're arguing for a A7 speedy delete. CSD A7 doesn't apply to software. The general notability guidelines that you link to don't require notability to be asserted, merely that notability could potentially be established through significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Should we take the nomination to mean that you searched for and were unable to find such sources, and therefore believe the article fails WP:N? - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, yes. My apologies for the miswording. Ironholds (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Great. With that clarification, I'm unable to find any significant coverage for this programming language (much to my surprise) and so therefore must agree that it fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferid Celosmanovic[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable soccer player. Player has no professional experience at any level of the game Real San Jose is an amateur team), no significant collegiate or other experience. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH JonBroxton (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 22:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the National Premier Soccer League is not fully proffesional and he therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. There insufficient coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATH, WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Don't see any reason that politician notability standards would come into play, but otherwise I agree with the editors above. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, and a Google News search turned up nothing indicating general notability (actually, it turned up nothing relating to him at all). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Search[edit]

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

CSD Spam tag repeatedly deleted (not declined), advert. GregJackP (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty transparent ad, sourced primarily (if not entirely) by the subject itself, which obviously won't work here. The "external links" to a special reserved namespace made me chuckle, though. Heather (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: just an online ad from an online advertising company. Next. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. –xeno^talk 13:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Long list of non-notable people noted for one event. Woogee (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the international importance of this, the President and his wife, the Head of the Army, the Head of the National Bank, etc., etc., this is HARDLY non-notable people.David V Houston (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of people who died in 9/11 was moved off to another site. Note that I never said anything about deleting the article about the crash. See Wikipedia:Victim Lists. Woogee (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Victim Lists is an essay; it is neither guidance nor policy. I cannot agree with the suggestion at Victim Lists that every single person in a list needs to notable for the list to be notable. In this case the majority of victims are notable and that on its own would be enough to make the list notable. Greenshed (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This request for deletion for is a misinterpretation of the Wikipedia is not a memorial rule. An accident like this is of major political importance. Imagine what kind of constitutional chaos would ensue of this type of accident happened in the US, UK, France, Germany, or Russia.Kinema τ
Keep. This is a very important political event. Tangurena (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And thus we have an article on the subject. Woogee (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Outrageous nomination. It was a Presidential Fleet airplane full of highest-ranking officials, who were mega-notable. - Darwinek (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the obnoxious attitude. Now explain to me what makes the members of the flight crew notable. Woogee (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Total misinterpretation of memorial notion (I'd argue that that it's essay isn't quite enough to call it a rule). I could support in principle the reduction of the list (e.g. removing flight crew and other individuals that would not fulfill notability criteria), but the fact remains that firstly a large number of very notable individuals died and the inclusion of others for the sake of completeness does not appear to make the article unwieldy, nor does it in anyway draw attention away from the more notable individuals. Secondly, simply because someone doesn't have a wikipedia article doesn't mean they are not notable and I think for now an open mind should be kept. This event may prompt editors to create articles for these individuals. I know WP shouldn't be a crystal ball, but the notability of a large number of people on the list justifies the list remaining as is. Fenix down (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to support the thoughts of everyone above. If it had been a commercial plane that just happened to be carrying some low ranking Assistant Secretary, than I would say delete. But this on had a president killed, along with nearly te rest of the government. Buggie111 (talk)
Redirect and Merge - Put it into a table in the main article as it does not need its own. Truthsort (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Persons are notable for many reasons and the list is not a memorial. Greenshed (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I say either keep this list, or list all victims on the article about the crash itself. For example, Maguindanao massacre has such a section. If this info is available to Wikipedia, we should use it.--RM (Be my friend) 23:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - the List is necessary to understand the gravity of the event for the Republic of Poland. --noclador (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this page should stay, there is plenty of notable people on the flight that died... (IP 99.234.185.68) [5]
Keep. Remove some names, if necessary (the crew, most likely). But this is long enough - enough notables were killed - that I think it would be wise to keep it out of the main article for now. It's simply a matter of length. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and include all names. I actually came to this article just now specifically to see the names of the crewmembers. That said, I would also support a merge back to the main article, as long as the information itself is maintained. --El on ka 03:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Unsplit into the main article. WP:NOTMEMORIAL for all the non-notable dead people on this list (crew, bodyguards, the "other" list for the most part), and MERGE the notable people back into the main article. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable, important information, and it's too long a list to be merged, which is why it was split out in the first place. Rebecca (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've always been in favour of Wikipedia holding statistical information like victims lists in any case, but in a situation like this where so many of the dead are notable a list like this is essential to a clear understanding of the subject.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to point something out in response to the person above is asking why the flight crew are notable. They aren't and that is why they don't have articles (if they did and there was no clear claim to notability then I would vote delete on those articles). This list is not an attempt to confer notability on them, it is a notable list that happens to include them - the person who wrote that above is misinterpretating NOT:MEMORIAL.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since it is pretty snowy around here (and I haven't said my opinion yet), may I or someone close this as snow keep? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm keep Jesus wept. Lugnuts (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - If this only had one or two notable people, I'd say delete under Wp:NOTMEMORIAL. But since the vast majority of the victims were notable, it's one of the most obvious keeps I've dealt with. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the users above--DAI (Δ) 10:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. —Nightstallion 12:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Quite an obvious mis-interpretation of both MEMORIAL and BLP1E. It's a valid fork for size reasons, and arguing who should and should not be listed is rather gauche. MickMacNee (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pil'gyn[edit]

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

Although I believe that this article was created in good faith, I have discovered no evidence to support any of the assertions of existence claimed by the article

There are several issues with this article. Firstly, it appears that the initial author has been under the impression that Pil'gyn refers to a specific lagoon, whereas it is a more general Chukchi word, used in numerous places throughout the area meaning the entrance to a lagoon. See Nutepelmen for an example of the use of Pyl'gin, with the usage of the word supported here (at roughly 67^o 30'N, 175E). This reference includes a further example at roughly 67N, 173E.

Secondly, This reference shows that the specific lagoon in question is called Laguna Kanugto (at roughly 69N, 179E). This claim is supported by a Russian source, which confirms that the romanisation of the Russian name is at least in the same ballpark and the lagoon is definitely not called Pyl'gin.

Thirdly there is no settlement called Pil'gyn in the area. The only two settlements are the former mining settlement of Polyarny and Leningradsky. The maps both show another settlement called Notakatryn. This is most probably an old Chukchi settlement that has been liquidated or a polar station. Either way, it is not a settlement called Pil'gyn. The "geographic data" link probably refers to a weather station rather than a genuine settlement and the "adventures in Pil'gyn area" only mentions the word once and does not provide any indication that Pil'gyn is a settlement rather than a road or area within Leningradsky or Polyarny (The wetlands link does not discuss Pil'gyn at all).

Finally, there is also no mention of a settlement or municipal area called Pil'gyn here in the official law conglomerating Shmidtovsky and Iultinsky Municipal Districts.

In summary, the article needs deletion as: there is no lagoon called Pil'gyn; There is no settlement called Pil'gyn, Pil'gyn is a generic Chukchi word not confined to one place and there is no area officially called Pil'gyn in Chukotka.

I should probably also note that I am involved in the editing of Chukotka related articles, though I do not claim to be an authoritative source in any way, but I suppose it could be construed that I have an conflicting interest in this so I feel I should declare it. Fenix down (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this assessment. I myself have been trying to find sources to support this article for quite some time, but was unable to find anything. Delete.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 13, 2010; 23:59 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenix down. David V Houston (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments to delete besides nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Joly[edit]

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

Reads like a resume, references are not clear and not directly related to biographical information. Questionable notability. Cptmurdok (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you searched, you will see there are a bunch of reliable sources that make this CEO fit WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources. There are plenty of other ones out there too. He seems to be a significantly notable CEO. Silver seren^C 04:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A better source is [6] including his name and the name of his company. Make sure no false results there. And some of them talk about him and his actions. Dream Focus 07:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added an external link (which includes a picture) to an article by the Wall Street Journal - CEO Council.--Travisjweber (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC) — Travisjweber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can hardly call the former CEO of such a major (former) game publisher non-notable. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Street Green Football Club[edit]

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

"Metropolitan Football League Division Five" is a long way off the radar in terms of notability. O Fenian (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This league does not even appear on the English football pyramid and the club appears to have been founded only a year ago, with this their first season playing. Doesn't even fulfil the general notability guidelines, which is a shame as the article itself is put together quite well. Fenix down (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:FOOTY project's notability rule of thumb (eligibility to compete in the FA Cup) by a long long way, and also fails the WP:GNG as no sources found at all. Amateur teams that play their home matches in public parks or on communal pitches would have to do something pretty astounding to be notable in the WP sense, and this one doesn't seem to have done so -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe there is reasonable grounds to consider that the creator of the article, Simsy86, is in fact Nick Sims, one of the players cited as playing for the club and as such, the significant areas of the article that are unsourced may not represent a neutral POV. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it goes without saying that any article on a team that competes at this sort of level can only possibly have been created by someone involved with the team...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both the guidelines for football clubs, as well as the WP:GNG. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Lazarus[edit]

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

Nothing in the article establishes notability - a single link to the subject talking on a TV show. Has been prod'ed before, but the prod was contested. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Im not sure what the claim to notability is here. No sources, very little links to it. Who is this guy? Bonewah (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources to the article. There's more where that came from. The sources say that he's an important consultant and speaker for Israel. Silver seren^C 06:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—spokesmen and public relations people usually have their names repeated a lot in the media. However, that does not mean they are notable or that there are sources that discuss them. This seems like a classic case. If more sources are introduced discussing Lazarus himself and why he is notable, I might change my mind. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neil Lazarus is a well known spokesperson and seminar host 192.17.117.130 (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Jerusalem Post [7] talks about a website the guy host. "The Web site is directed by hasbara and communication- training expert Neil Lazarus, who recently served as the Israel advocacy consultant for the hugely popular Israeli reality show, The Ambassador." He was part of a hugely popular show, and is now running what is apparently something notable enough to get news coverage. Lot of other mentions of the guy. Dream Focus 00:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Result was Speedy Delete G11

Photography in Nanaimo[edit]

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

Raising at AfD because a speedy deletion (wrong category) has already been declined. This is clearly a WP:COATRACK advertising a photographer. Even if that was removed, there is nothing particularly notable about photography in Nanaimo as opposed to anywhere else. Delete. I42 (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Seems that there's a fellow named Marcus who "is well known for his creative black and white photography on the Vancouver Island. He also specializes in Wedding, Portraits, commercial and family photography," and there's a link to his website that has a button if you wish to book Marcus. Regardless of whose idea this was, it's not much different than an article called "Personal injury attorney in Nanaimo". Mandsford (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, advertising. Woogee (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement for a non-notable photographer masquerading as an article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Advertising, also tagged as such. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete SD. Marketing in Nanaimo by the same editor should go with it. --KenWalker | Talk 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have nominated it for speedy deletion. I42 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters featured in War of the Independents[edit]

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

List which fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. All I can find is online chatter about this long delayed project. I cannot find any WP:RS that would allow it to pass WP:N see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of the Independents -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list does not provide any verifiable rationale for inclusion, such as citation of showing the source of the list. Lists need some form of verifiable published source to demonstrate that they are not original research or patent nonsense, and to enable the reader to check to see if the list content in some way relates to its subject matter where it is not enirely accurate and complete. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Protection and Tourism Club[edit]

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

Prodded (twice). Article makes no particular claim of notability for this club, and is mostly a description of summer camp-like activities. No substantive secondary sources exist in either English or Romanian. Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sounds like a very nice, small group, but I don't see any claim to or sourcing for notability. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mclean[edit]

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

I'm concerned about the notability of this individual - has received no wider coverage in sources. &dorno rocks. (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. This individual has been covered in magazines and TV in the UK and various websites all over the internet and is also referenced in other pages on wikipedia. If you google "Rob Mclean PES" you will see this. This individual has also been in several National Newspaper Publications. One example is here - http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/18776/You-was-robbed/.

Please remove the deletion notice on the Wikipedia page concerned. Thanks. (talk) 20:18 British Summer Time

You may be struggling to find anything of the individual in wider sources as the individual is better known as "Rob Mclean". When searching by this name you will see this individual is the first result in google images. 20:29 BST.

I don't think coverage in a tabloid newspaper such as the Star counts as "significant coverage in a reliable source". The deletion tag will be removed if the consensus of this discussion is that the individual is in fact notable. &dorno rocks. (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment restored page after Pesgirl deleted it. (GregJackP (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Can't be much if the Star gets used as a ref.... Doesn't look particularly notable to me. 'Semi-professional'? Ah, well... Peridon (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - The author blanked the page in good faith in an attempt to delete the page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my earlier comment was not about the blanking of the article page, it was about the creator blanking this AfD page and my reverting that vandalism. I should have been more specific - my apologies. (GregJackP (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Reply - The actual article was blanked by the author as well here. The page can be speedily deleted per G7. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, I thought you wanted it deleted? - pesgirl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesgirl (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per discussion and nominator request. Materialscientist (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Valuable Players (film)[edit]

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

~~Does not appear to meet either the general notability guideline (lacks significant coverage in multiple sources) or the subject specific guidelines for films.~~ cmadler (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —cmadler (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is an article from California Chronicle, reprinted from The Morning Call. That now makes two separate sources that have significant coverage of this film. Let's look for more coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the primary author. This article is still fairly new, was started only a few weeks ago, and so I feel this AFD is premature. As far as other sources, I'll try to dig some up. The Chicago Tribune just ran the same story as the California Chronicle above, which even if it's a reprint, shows its receiving wide coverage throughout the country, not just locally. Even putting that aside, the article already meets WP:N because it is cited with reliable secondary sources, not the kind of material that WP:NF frowns upon (press releases, trailers, advertising, trivial coverage). — Hun ter Ka hn 19:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cmadler is looking for sources besides The Express-Times, which is the only one used in the article currently. The reprints lend credence, so it's not quite a shoo-in. It looks like that it is screening this Friday, so there will likely be coverage in the ensuing weekend. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I added the non-Express source I previously cited, and will dig up more in the meantime. — Hun ter Ka hn 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The discussion appears premature, given that the film is upcoming. A couple of newspaper sources for a project at that stage is enough for the benefit of the doubt, given that the article material is there and sourced. A review of notability in, say, a year's time when the film has been released would be in order. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. I'd like to see more varied sources, and with the screening this Friday, they should be forthcoming. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per revisions so article now has coverage from multiple sources. I'm sure even more coverage will be forthcoming this weekend. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films. In addition, it's produced and created by non-notable film makers about a non-notable subject and distributed by a non-notable company. An article about the Freddy Awards would surely be deleted, why should a film about them stick around? Woogee (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy you are citing regarding future films refers to films that "that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography". This one doesn't fit the criteria. And actually, there is a Wikipedia article about The Freddy Awards. And before you rush over to AFD that one, please keep in mind that the subject isn't quite as non-notable as you indicate. Although it's primarily a local event, it has won an Emmy Award, as well as other honors, and obviously is the subject of a forthcoming film. Also, there has already been at least some discussion about that article's notability, and it passed a DYK review about 10 months ago. — Hun ter Ka hn 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read further to the part which says Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.. Woogee (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which this film is, in my view, due to the presence of reliable, secondary sources. But I understand that you disagree. — Hun ter Ka hn 00:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pushing nicely at WP:GNG. With respects to User:Woogee, it is not a "future film", as principle filming has begun, ended, the film has been through post-production, and will debut before this AFD has run 7 days. The project is completed and not at all speculative.... and as repeated sourcing shows, it is slated for debut on April 16, 2010. And as for the argument of "non-notability" of its filmmakers... Notability is found through coverage of the subject (the film) in reliable sources... not through lack of coverage of involved individuals [8][9]. Just as notability is not inherited, neither is it dis-inherited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and not a case of WP:CRYSTAL (even though I understand that hasn't been cited here). WP:CRYSTAL does not rule things out merely because they haven't happened; it rules out speculative events. This is not a speculative film; the sources confirm that. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article crosses both the verifiability and notability thresholds with coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Any "future" concerns are waived by a simple reading of the policy and that the first screening is in three days. - Dravecky (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - additional sources clearly support notability per GNG. cmadler (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boo Bailey[edit]

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

No sources and fails WP:ENT by miles. IMDb only has him listed for the beach party thing. The article has been deleted six times under this name as well as "Boo bailey". PROD contested by IP. Favonian (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet again as per nomination. This guy really can't let go of his childhood as a "star", can he? Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, recreated Six times! this has to end Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cleaned it up some, and sectioned it in encouraging improvements. I challange the author User:Yodude500 to actually show some notability. If he does so, I will reconsider my delete... but I was myself unable to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Non-notable actor, IMDb pages are not reliable sources, no independent sources, and IMDb isn't one. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh... it is generally accepted that IMDB list of actors for released projects is okay enough, since cast can be sourced directly to the released project itself. That said, and otherwise in agreement, his being in only one project fails WP:ENT, and lack of any coverage anywhere else puts the nail in the coffin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above, lest there be any ambiguity remaining on this one. Evalpor (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Back several months ago, I declined an A7 speedy on this, but I heartily agreed with the subsequent prod. Given the determination to have an unsourced stub on this, salt would be delicious. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-salt. This has been deleted twice under this title, four times under the lower-case version of the title, and I thought a couple of times under a misspelling, but I'm not certain. I believe I PRODded this once before with a message like, "Non-notable child actor with one minor appearance in a straight-to-video production," and I certainly still agree with that assessment. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wichaar[edit]

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

Tagged as having unclear notability since July 2009. It has no independant, reliable sources to assert notability. EuroPride (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotional in nature with statements like: "So we hope that it will the harbinger of other Shahmukhi Punjabi websites to fulfil the needs of 90 million Punjabi people that live in Pakistan." It makes unreferenced claims to notability, but after searching I have not been able to verify any of them. Notability is not established for this website. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Rankiri (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLAY DEAD (Thriller Novel)[edit]

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

Book that won't be released for another couple of weeks, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally attempted CSD as A7 (web) but it was stricken by the author of the article. While the novel itself is slated for impending release, that does not connote notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability for this novel by a former soap actor; fails WP:NBOOK. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. One two three... 20:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siegel Suites[edit]

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

Promotional article about a low-rent apartment chain, one of a set of recent articles promoting the activities of The Siegel Group. No evidence of notability apart from half a sentence in an NYT article. Fails WP:N and WP:SPAM

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same promotional push for The Siegel Group and are also about non-notable buildings:

andy (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'd list these separately, as the outcomes for each type are different. Apartment buildings like the Siegel Suites are not inherently notable, and I would delete or merge that one. In fact, like BLPs, they need to be heavily sourced; otherwise, we'd be overrun with listings of apartment buildings. There has to some historical or cultural significance. I support, in concept, Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks), a failed proposal that remains useful. So we fall back onto WP:GNG and WP:OUTCOMES. Residences such as the Hotel Chelsea or Co-op City, Bronx are notable enough for their own articles. Lesser, but still significant apartment buildings are merged into other articles, for example Sedgwick_Avenue#1520_Sedgwick_Avenue. On the other hand, casinos usually get their own articles, so I'd keep Gold Spike Hotel and Casino. I would delete The Artisan Hotel as just not notable. I'm open to a disussion on its merits. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these should be listed separetely. But let's start at Gold Spike. This is a downtown Hotel & Casino that hs been on Wikipedia for years. I did not create the article, but I have tried to expand the article and make it more usable. There has been on the Template:Downtown Las Vegas since the template was created in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Downtown_Las_Vegas&oldid=25347599). There are over 23,000 hits when you Google "Gold Spike Hotel & Casino", not even counting over variations on the name. There are also LA Times and NY Times both talk about Gold Spike from time to time. Local media covers the Gold Spike quite regularly. I think the Gold Spike is a very easy keep. I created the Siegel Suites article a few months ago. Using Wikipedia as a Guide, there is similiar articles on Budget Suites of America, which is a similiar chain as Siegel Suites. Budget Suites of America is in 3-states with a total of 18 different properties in the chain. Siegel Suites is a chain of 16 properties in 1 state. Budget Suites offers Weekly/Monthly Hotel/Apartment, just like Siegel Suites does. If it was a single hotel/apartment, I would agree that it should be deleted. But as it is a chain of 16 properties, and there are over 300,000 matches when you Google "Siegel Suites", I vote keep. I would like others to help me make this a better article. I only created the Artisan Hotel article last night and haven't had much time to work on it yet. I think that since Las Vegas, Nevada and the metro area's primary industry is tourism, it seems that articles on tourism destinations are notable enough to be mentioned. It has been covered quite a bit in the local media, especially KTNV, the local ABC affiliate. I vote keep for now, with the hope that others will work on this article and improve it.Michaelcox (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added notes, The Artisan Hotel is notable enough to have had two different TV series film episodes at it and one of the casinos in the video game Vegas Stakes is believed to be based on the Gold Spike Hotel and Casino. Both of these seem to add value to the notablitity of these two articles.Michaelcox (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's not how notability works. Otherwise every building, tree or lamppost that ever appeared in a TV or movie scene would be notable. If, on the other hand, an entire series was set in the hotel because of the visual qualities of, say, its decor or location, then you might have a point. andy (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment The episode summary of Sin City Diaries episode 1 "Celebrity couple Tommy LaHaita and Erica London check into The Artisan Hotel planning a secret wedding out of sight of the media and paparazzi. However, when someone manages to breach the Hotel’s security and photograph the couple in their room the desperate hotel management turns to Angelica and her concierge staff to manage security and provide the private setting for the couples wedding."

http://www.tv.com/sin-city-diaries/in-capable-hands/episode/1083576/summary.html.

It seems like there has been '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail' WP:N, as noted in the references on the various pages. As of the Current revision of the Artisan hotel article, there are 18 or so unique references on the article, including the New York Times, the LA Times, both Vegas newspapers, local Vegas TV news, etc. Gold Spike has 14 references currently in the article, including LA Times, both Vegas papers, a trade publication, SEC filings, and more. This secondary sources seems to point to Notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources". Michaelcox (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not true in policy that "In fact, like BLPs, they need to be heavily sourced; otherwise, we'd be overrun with listings of apartment buildings" If a building is notable, it does not matter how many of them there are in Wikipedia because we are NOT PAPER. They need only be sourced enough to show notability. BLPs have some added requirements--but they too do not have to be "heavily" sourced, just that any controversial material in them must be sourced to reliable non-published sources. And thisis the case not in order to keep down the size of Wikipedia , but because unreliable sourcing here can do harm to living individuals. If some significant apartment uildings have ben merged before, that does not mean we have to follow poor decisions made in the past. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, you are correct, that was hyperbole. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep on the Gold Spike Hotel and Casino. No question of notability. The Artisan could well be notable. I have considered an article on this in the past but did not think there were sufficient sources to meet WP:N. However, it would appear that there are sufficient sources to justify a Keep. Also the alleged criminal activities at the hotel in 2009 and earlier should be added to the article. I'll point out that a lot of Siegle Suites material has appeared so I wonder if there are WP:COI issues. Even if that is true, the articles are sourced. I don't understand why Siegel Suites is nominated and it should be a speedy keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Vegas. Sources exist which prove notability. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey Girls (stereotype)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NPOV, fails to cite any reliable sources, and takes the form of an attack page. It is largely an opinion article and I don't see how it's inclusion could benefit Wikipedia. HarlandQPitt (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication in the current article that this is a notable term. The article is unsourced and very close to crossing the line as an attack page. I can not find significant coverage of this term in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Aside from "girl from New Jersey" jokes, I am not sure there is any mention of this topic in secondary sources. The current article is pure original research. Abductive (reasoning) 19:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it wasn't meant as a prank, it's definitely unreffed original research. Moriori (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not worth saving, even if a real article could be created in the future.--Milowent (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Marple[edit]

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

Its an article about a man who owned a bait shop, with a grand total of one line about the man, then a bit about his shop then the rest is about the lake his shop was near. No indication that the man or the shop are notable, most of the links have nothing to do with Johnny, neither do the references Jac16888 ^Talk 18:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTE. The article makes it appear as if Johnny's Bait House appears on the List of National Historic Landmarks in Maryland, when in actuality it appears nowhere on the list. The superfluous information in the article serves no other purpose than to mislead the reader by sandwiching minimal original research with cited facts that have absolutely no bearing on the subject of the article. HarlandQPitt (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not meet our inclusions guidelines such as WP:PRODUCT, and does not meet WP:V, a core policy. As David V Houston noted, among the cites listed, the software is only mentioned once in passing in the only reliable source. A number of other long PDF sources did not mention the product at all. SilkTork *^YES! 00:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MetaTeam (software)[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage, and those given are not much more than incidental mentions. Haakon (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haakon. I think you may be short changing the notability of both the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's Venture Forum organization and the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The Venture Forum is a significant proponent of startups in Western MA and they gave quite a bit of attention to eVisioner and MetaTeam.

I understand that the EIU citation is small and may seem insignificant, but please consider that Team Governance is a new category of product, though one with considerable academic and professional credentials, with one entry — so arguably the mention is more notable for its newness. Moreover, the other cited companies included Google, Facebook and other household names. So while MetaTeam is clearly not as notable as some of its peers, it has also clearly been noticed and held up by a serious organization.

I would ask that the article not be deleted, at least at this time.

If you think it makes more sense to move the product description to a company page I'll do it. (I admit I probably should have done that, but thought the product more notable on balance).

Sbugs (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More software relating to the supervision of computer programmers --- a collaborative team governance Web application --- that really needs evidence of notability in a wider world. None here: even a general Google search finds only download and internal sites. Attempts at claiming significance

In the area of project management software MetaTeam is notable for its focus on the governance issues of work teams as a first-class concern, rather than as secondary to scheduling, budgeting and documents. This attention is paid in the context of how the organization activities are specified by standards like the PMBOK, in its Project Human Resource Management skill area

and arguing notability in the article itself---

cited as the exemplar for the Team Governance category in a report on virtual teams... well-reviewed by bloggers... was a finalist in the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's WPI Venture Forum Business Plan Contest

fail to convince of significance outside IT departments, and instead the self-congratulatory nature of all these "references" pushes the article in the direction of advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ihcoyc. There is no mention of computer programmers or of using the product in IT in the article or on the company site provided. In fact, MetaTeam is a soft-skills oriented tool, applicable to IT/software development, sure, but more geared towards Project Management Office-style oversight, DoD specific regulations, and general business projects.

There is no intent to be self-congratulatory in the references (not suggesting you are wrong in picking that up, just that the attempt was to be neutral while at the same time offering evidence of notability. A difficult task!)

Please suggest how the article can be edited to be more factual and less self-congratulatory – happy to adjust.

Sbugs (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sbugs claims notability due to the Economist. The software is mentioned precisely once, in passing, as an example of a minor part of what they are talking about. Entirely non-notable, IMO. David V Houston (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet forums[edit]

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

Seems to be a target for linkspam, and also seems to promote certain forums. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CLS. The list can be expanded and improved. Compare with Category:Internet forums. — Rankiri (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inclusion criterion too vast (indiscriminate, though the proper WP:NOT guideline is actually in WP:NOTDIR). Actual list at the moment is a tiny non-representative sample of internet forums, but a representative list would be unmanageable.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTAF. As most Wikipedia lists and disambiguation pages, the list is limited to notable entries. It's certainly not unmaintainable. — Rankiri (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you include constantly changing quantities such as the number of posts and the number of members (in "exact" numbers instead of size approximations) as the current version of the article does, then how can you maintain it? Right now the Something Awful numbers on the page are off by about 6 millions for posts and 5000 for members...--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the numerical columns present a problem, but if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers might be a bit off, but the list still reflects the relative sizes of the forums. I think that is the most important information here. One way to improve the list is perhaps to add another column with the timestamp of when the individual post and member counts were collected. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But I agree that the current list is small compared to Category:Internet forums, so more forums from there should be included. The list gives a size comparison that the category does not. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic fails WP:NOT#DIR as it does not have a definition in accordance WP:LISTS#List content without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of synthesis, and looking at the content of this list, its lack of souring that suggest it is entirely made up of unrelated topics stitched together to create an entirely novel list topic that has never been published before. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The inclusion criteria is stated in the lede, but should be more explicit: The intention is to include only forums that have an article on Wikipedia, thereby ensuring notability. You might have a point w.r.t. synthesis, but only if the stats are not taken from the respective Wikipedia articles. I disagree that the list is made up of unrelated topics (or maybe I just don't understand what you mean). It's a list of Internet forums, and many (all?) are in the Category:Internet forums. The list can be improved with additional columns such as one for forum software (vBulletin, phpBB, etc.), year of launch, etc. To me it seems like a better idea to try to improve the list rather than to delete it. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kelle Marie[edit]

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

Possible failure of WP:PORNBIO. She has only been nominated for one award, not across multiple year. Being Penthouse Pet of the Month does not satisfy notability criteria and she only appears to have appeared in one video not 'featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.' EuroPride (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG as she lacks substantive coverage in reliable third party sources, and PORNBIO is depreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like hell is PORNBIO depreciated! Tabercil (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tabercil (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

So what happens if the person does not get multiple notable nominations, but seems to push at WP:GNG anyway? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And are any of the 75 films or 3 Television programs listed here mainstream? And did the two films she directed get any positive reviews? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about what she directed, but the listings on IMDB look to be whole adult-oriented material; the only one that might not be is the "Sex, Footballers and Videotape" entry. Tabercil (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Howard Stern has won enough awards to be considered notable and "mainstream" enough, and Sex, Footballers and Videotape might itself be notable enough for an article per such as Sunday Herald, Sunday Herald, The Guardian, Evening Standard, The Guardian, Scottish Media Monitor, Sky News, and a few others... so if that film is seen as notable, and with her appearance on the Stearns show to be definitely featured, she might just be barely edging up on "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media"... though yes, her role in the film does not seem to be at all major. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

The standard ARS tactic of googlebombing with random references that have little or no content, and little or nothing to do with the subject is depreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hipocrite: Pardon me if I not not appreciate your negative and bad faith accusation toward myself and the Article Rescue Squadron. Attempting to negatively color this discussion by denigrating the efforts of several hundered contributing members of the ARS with your statement "...standard ARS tactic of googlebombing with random references that have little or no content" is unhelpful to this discussion, and is incorrect in that there is no such "standard practice" used by the 347 ARS members. Even if you feel one or two might do so, denigrating the other 345 is not at all helpful. I am trying to civilly determine whether or not to support this deletion. In addressing Tabercil's comment about the non-porn film "Sex, Footballers and Videotape", and in determining whether or not it might itself be seen as "notable mainstream media, I offered Sunday Herald, Sunday Herald, The Guardian, Evening Standard, The Guardian, Scottish Media Monitor, and Sky News as links that specifically dealt with that film... and which might even merit the film having its own article. So please, shall we stay on topic? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has two acceptably notable appearances, and Penthouse PotM, and the rest of her body may be adult only, but is substantial. I actually found her article after reading a reference to her, which is the point of Wikipedia.Mzmadmike (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the three reasons listed in the article itself. She was the Penthouse Pet of the Month for May 2001.[1] In the Andrew Blake 2003 film Hard Edge, noted by AVN as one of the 500 Greatest Adult Films of All Time.[2] In 2007 Kelle Marie was featured in a Good Magazine produced online video about Internet pornography.[3] Sounds like three notable things to me. Dream Focus 06:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How are those things notable? There is consensus that being Playmate/pet of the month does not assert notability. Being in a film that was named as 1 of 500 films is not really notable and the online video appears to be totally non-notable. EuroPride (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

V (Programming Language)[edit]

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

Non-notable "pre-alpha" software - fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I'd like to ask "The Terminator for the assassin", Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. — Rankiri (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: First, "The Terminator" isn't a Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Wikipedia itself has an article over it. Second, make a search about "The Terminator" and you will get hundreds of links about the above said "The Terminator" and that too the top searches. One Harsh (talk)

Delete - unsourced, sounds made up. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely lacks independent coverage. Pcap ping 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies[edit]

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

Suggest this article should be deleted. The actual empirical majority of the content is about its closure which was now over 8 years ago. The rest of the article references some rather niche academics at a rather middling UK University. The vast majority of UK University Sub-Departments don't have their own wiki page. Why should this? Jstriker (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. Closed research centres are as notable as ones that are still open. And "considerable attention in the national press" establishes notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The attention in the national press you refer to was only as a result of the closure of the school. It seems in this case that the controvery over the department's closure was more notable than the department itself ever was. Jstriker (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - actually if you go back and look in newspaper indexes, not just google news archives, you'll find that this place had plenty of newspaper coverage while it was open too. newspapers, books, academic journals, just tons of material, it's quite famous. --Buridan (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
Keep Notable institution in the formation of a field of study. See for example the chapter entitled "The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies" by Michael Green in "Rereading English" by Peter Widdowson (Routledge, 2002) (the sort of link that Google Scholar can provide) which begins "Though cultural studies was substantially pioneered at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham University, these notes attempt neither a history of significant intellectual developments there..." Ths is notability. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand the rules for notability of organisations, the sources must be "independent of the subject". The book you refer to does not seem to be independent of the subject - Michael Green used to be the Director of this particular institution. Jstriker (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your point: the book cited was edited by Peter Widdowson (obituary: [10]) and published by Routledge, a respected academic publisher? AllyD (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly the independence wikipedia strives for in its secondary sources for notability is it - the auteur of the article you reference was also closely tied to the institution in question to the extent that he rose to the rank of Director there. The appeal to authority of mentioning the publisher's kudos is weak in this instance - analogy: a nationally syndicated journalist writes a book and then reviews it himself in a newspaper. Just because that newspaper is nationally syndicated does not make the source notable due to "non independence from the subject". It is the auteur who matters and wikipedia regulations state the source must be independent of the subject. If the institution is notable, surely there are better secondary sources than this - perhaps by notable academics from other fields? Jstriker (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More broadly, I do recommend that Google Scholar search. Taking a few citations about the CCCS: "earned an international reputation for its empirical research and innovatory theory" (Off-centre: Feminism and cultural studies); "in the works of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, has recently had a significant and influential impact in the United States" (History, politics and postmodernism: Stuart Hall and cultural studies); "the project of cultural studies which was developed by the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies" (Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity, and Politics between the Modern and the Postmodern). AllyD (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Hall founded this institution so again, this example doesn't seem to adhere to wiki policy regarding "independence from the subject". Jstriker (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 books I cited are not by Stuart Hall but respectively by Franklin-Lurey-Stacy, Lawrence Grossberg (who did study at the CCCS, I note) and Douglas Kellner (who didn't as far as I know). AllyD (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the academics you list, where they don't have a direct connection to this institution, all come from the quite narrow subject area of cultural studies and as such are of doubtful value in establishing the notability of this institution beyond, as I mention initially, a very small niche band of academics due to their non-independence from the subject matter at hand. Surely, if this institution was truly notable it would have been recognised outside of this select group who seem to have formed circuitous references? For example, compare as a "blue-ribbon" standard, the well referenced notability of the Max Planck Institute. Jstriker (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another specific discussion, this time in the lead para of this article from Washington State Uni: [11]. AllyD (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Are we supposed to have articles about all defunct departments? Also, the article itself reads like an advertisement...--MagisterMilitum (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Sociology notified. AllyD (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep For now keep the article. I think that there is enough coverage to let the article remain for now to see if other information can be found in off line sources. At a later date, if nothing else shows up then perhaps a merge discussion can happen. But for now keep. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 23:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notable thing about this institution seems to be the fact it was closed. --81.153.231.175 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Notability seems to stem from its closure. 188.221.202.217 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whole issues of academic journals written about this place, yes this specific center.... probably upwards of 200 newspaper articles over its history... notable, yes... one of the founding locations of the field of cultural studies. in terms of sociology/culturalstudies/philosophy/history this place, with a proper article should be an A level article. I just needs improved. A bit of simple research by its nominator would have prevented this nomination. --Buridan (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm incredulous that Wikipedia would even consider deleting this page; CCCS was a pioneering research centre, the touchstone for a whole generation of cultural-studies scholars. There's much more to be said about the Centre than this page covers, but that's a reason to expand, not delete. Are the voices for deletion conversant with Cultural Studies, and I've just missed a development that rendered this Centre unimportant? --Akma (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeatedly pointed out the centre seems to be more notable for its closure than anything else. I am conversant with "Cultural Studies" and have pointed out above that circuitous references between a small group of niche academics, many of whom were linked to this institution in someway does not make such sources "independent of the subject". Rgds. Jstriker (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of references available, the page needs improved. As for your 'related', here I think you might be extending a bit far. In any case, this is notable beyond all requirements.--Buridan (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly claiming that the centre "seems to be more notable for its closure than anything else" doesn't make it true, Jstriker (or perhaps, makes it true only to you); the Centre was a catalyst for the genesis and flourishing of an entire academic movement. Are you suggesting that only institutions of the broad significance of the Max Planck Institute (a centre with a longer history and wider span of subject areas) merit Wikipedia pages? What's the benefit to Wikipedia in eliminating this page?--Akma (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going on the basis of the notability of the sources I could find it's true. I've never seen any sources in the mainstream press referencing this centre which weren't related to its closure for example. As I said it seems to only be notable among a niche group of academics. I think its importance has been blown out of all proportion here. How many University sub-Departments - not faculties, not Departments, but a level lower than even that, have their own wiki page? Especially defunct ones. I think the most pertinent colloquialism here is "superhero in their own lunchbox". The only sources provided to establish notability other than for closure are webpages which no longer exist. The only references brought up in this discussion have not been independent from the subject at hand, due to either direct links to the institution itself or the very niche subject itself. The genesis for this "movement" was The Frankfurt School in any event. Jstriker (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I echo the comments of Buridan and Akma - this was a very significant group in its day and there are numerous references to the centre in many frequently-read academic texts. Davidbrake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I think that Jstriker's claim that publications by people in the relevant academic field shouldn't count towards notability is dreadful. This is like saying that publications by cardiologists shouldn't count for determining whether a heart disease or a heart transplant program is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think equating "Cultural" Studies to medical science is dreadful. Jstriker (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mehboob[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Google searches do not yield information about this Syed Mehboob. Insufficient evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BIO -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Syed Mehboob" "Financial Times" earn the Golden Donut award when searched by Google. Similar results are obtained by switching another name of a periodical listed in the article (ignoring Wikipedia mirrors). B.Wind (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Author blanked the article, deleted for WP:CSD#G8 Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Woodruff[edit]

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

While not denigrating Maj Woodruff's service to his country, there does not seem to be anything in this biography to distinguish him from the hundreds of thousands of other brave soldiers serving our country. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author blanked the page, at which point it was deleted under WP:CSD#G7. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah was refreshing my knowledge of AfD closing procedures to took me a while to close this after the deletion ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Comics News[edit]

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

Website that fails WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:WEB. The website has no coverage of it that I can find on Google News or Google search. The article claimed that it was translated into several languages but I found that it simply had an embedded link to Google Translate to translate the page. One reviewer/writer for the website seems to be notable but the rest don't seem to be notable and work for seemingly non-notable websites. The website was created this month and may become notable but I see zero reasons that it may be now. OlYeller^Talktome 14:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no secondary sources to demonstrate WP:WEB notability. Suspect there are WP:COI issues too, but they are not particularly relevant to this discussion. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following OlYeller - fails all the vital notability guidelines, its main claim to fame seems to be it has staff from Newsarama and Silver Bullet Comic Books. It doesn't seem to have won any prestigious awards or had any major coverage, I have no problem if someone wants to sandbox this and work on - you can drop me a note and/or one to WT:CMC when you feel it is up to spec. (Emperor (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC) OlYeller^Talktome 05:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You (2011 film)[edit]

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

Provides no sources. I can find no sources. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. OlYeller^Talktome 14:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The author of the article, F5pain, has removed speedy deletion tags twice and a prod tag once. OlYeller^Talktome 14:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please see below. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am very surprised that you cannot find any sources. I Googled "Thank You" "Anees Bazmee" and found multiple sources. There's even an article from today saying that the director is flying to Canada to film Thank You. I'm not quite sure about keeping, though... per WP:NFF, I'd like to see filming verified to have begun. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFF. filming has already begun (or begins from April 15) and is verifiable by reports in RS. I have sourced the article now.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would withdraw the nomination but I can't find the instructions in WP:DPR. If an admin or editor in good standing could help, I'll sign it (if possible). Sorry for not being able to find the sources you found so easily. I'll make sure to check more carefully next time. OlYeller^Talktome 05:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since I have not yet commented on this, would you mind if I could close this for you? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Works for me. OlYeller^Talktome 05:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should clarify; I know how to close AfDs but not so they say something to the effect of "nominator withdrawn". OlYeller^Talktome 05:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nebraska's 3rd congressional district. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Davis[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - long standing consensus is that candidates for political office who are not otherwise notable, are not notable just because they are a candidate. ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nebraska's 3rd congressional district, as the general rule prescribed by WP:POLITICIAN requires for otherwise unnotable political candidates. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per. Mkativerata's suggestion. Not currently notable. Claritas (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect No inherent notability. Candidature does not confer notability of itself. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BIOFUSE[edit]

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

Major contributor has a conflict of interest, but this page asserts notability, so it can't be speedily deleted. I'm asking the wider community on whether or not this particular article is suitable for our project - it looks much too 'promotional' for us. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to have much on google - most hits for biofuse are for a speedo product or an EU marine biodiversity project. Reads as WP:Original research. noq (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayrton Senna versus Alain Prost[edit]

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

Stub content fork of material already in the Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna articles. --Midgrid (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, duplication of existing information and does not expand on information. Any search close to this is far more likely to bring up the two drivers indivdually and cover the topic more comprehensively. No reason to keep it. --Falcadore (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as said, duplication of content with no real information. QueenCake (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's better to deal with this rivalry in the articles on Prost and Senna. John Anderson (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Much better placed in driver articles and season articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, like many of the above members of WP:F1, don't think this is worth its own article. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 06:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Falcadore. AlexJ (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted, per CSD G7 at creator's request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infomaster[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage. The somewhat generic name does not help, but they're not even the top Google hit for the term. Haakon (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infomaster is an established product in Singapore. It is in the top 10 page for google.com.sg and the number one link on yahoo.com.sg for "erp software". It is one of the notable singapore developed softwares that has been around since 1987. More information on the product can be found in the Singapore Infocomm portal. http://www.infocommsingapore.sg/isg/index.php/web/content/company?show=cba&node_id=2301 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry.g.mason (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 April 2010

Delete I have just tried searching for "erp software" on google.com.sg, and Infomaster did not appear in the first 100 hits, whether I tried a worldwide search or restricted it to pages from Singapore. It must have moved down very quickly, if the above was correct when it was written. When I tried searching yahoo.com.sg for "erp software" Infomaster was the third hit, not first. However, whether first, third, or two hundredth, this is the company's own website, and so not an independent source. I have also tried the more specific search "erp software" Infomaster on both Yahoo and Google on each of sg, uk, and us, and did not find anything that could remotely be called significant independent coverage. There are plenty of hits for advertising directory listings and similar sites, but nothing substantial anywhere at all except for the company's own site. As for the link given in the above post, it is a link to a business directory listing at the bottom of which is the note "Disclaimer: All content published on this page was provided by the company listed". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:WEB and meets and/or exceeds WP:SPAM. --Ronbo76 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endeavour Software Project Management[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by SPA. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage, only routine announcements, incidental mentions and download pages. Haakon (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For significant third-party coverage please check again the references section a blog post by Lee Schlesinger.

http://sourceforge.net/blog/endeavour-to-improve-your-development-process/

Lee Schlesinger is an IT journalist who is the social media specialist for SourceForge.net and who previously served as senior technology editor for ZDNet’s Tech Update pages and executive editor of ZDNet’s Business & Technology pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) — E-cuellar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy delete: recreation of previously deleted material that does not remove the previous problems (Sourceforge blogs are not reliable sources) and unambiguous advertising: an open source solution to manage the creation of large-scale enterprise systems. Yet more software relating to the supervision of computer programmers, with no real notability in the wider world; this falls within the overemphasized portion of Wikipedia's inherent bias. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the opinion of people with the prestige of Lee Schlesinger is qualified as not been a reliable source and is not relevant to Wikipedia then Wikipedia itself serves no other purpose than fill the void created by the lack of real talent of their self proclaimed editors. Editing a wiki page and yet acting in a totalitarian way pretending to exercise some sort of power requires no skill at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs)

Delete. No independent coverage by WP:RS sources. Promotional. Possible WP:G4. — Rankiri (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:WEB, criteria #3 (its software is being distributed by CNET through SourceForge. That criteria alone relieves the need for sources. Normally, WP:ELNO would prohibit a blog as being a reference but as per item 11, the Lee Schlesinger link on SourceForge comes from one of its admins, leeschlesinger. I know his name because I listen to the CNET report daily and he was featured there. Schlesinger is an expert in his field (you can read about him his website. For him to approve the subject at Sourgenet and for CNET to distribute the software meets or exceeds WP:WEB and WP:N. --Ronbo76 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB's criterion 3 covers distribution via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. It particularly rejects trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight. — Rankiri (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNET meets or exceeds that. --Ronbo76 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. [12] is a blog entry with no editorial oversight that basically copies from a primary source. Compare with [13]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ELNO. Blogs from respected experts in their field are generally allowed in Wikipedia. Now, if this a was a gossip blog or a trivial mention, I would not bring up WP:ELNO twice. --Ronbo76 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, CNET distributes the software which meets that criteria. Oversight is given to software put up for downloads. --Ronbo76 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does WP:ELNO have to do with anything? I see no actual evidence that the blog's author is a highly regarded expert in his field. Even if he is, the blog is still inadmissible as a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. The first paragraph only quotes from the above primary source. The second paragraph only quotes the developer of the product. The third paragraph paraphrases the standard description of the software, seen on [14] and [15]. The last two paragraphs also repeat the words of the developer. No independent coverage whatsoever.

In addition, your case for the subject's notability rests on a single blog entry. Even if the source was admissible (and it's not), it would still not be enough. — Rankiri (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If being on charge of the SourceForge blog, author for Slashdot and having served as a senior technology editor for ZDNet’s Tech Update pages and executive editor of ZDNet’s Business & Technology pages is not considered as an expert in his field then what is being an expert?

Keep How do you classify it as a a blog entry with no editorial oversight if you were not its author? This blog post was produced by an interview composed of 7 questions. Again, if somebody with the prestige of Lee Schlesinger is not respected in Wikipedia then there must be something terribly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs)

Comment. In case there are any doubts about WP:WEB#Criteria #3, SourceForge is the largest freely accessible code repository on the Internet. Aside from the very few basic requirements (submitted projects must be related to software and licensed under an Open Source license, etc), the repository itself has no editorial oversight. See [16] — Rankiri (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The repository is not what is in question here but the blog managed by the prestigious Lee Schlesinger who considered Endeavour Software Project Management notable enough to write about it. And yes! Sourceforge is the largest freely accessible code repository with projects like JBoss, SugarCRM, Compiere, Pentaho and out of the millions of projects in it Endeavour Software Project Management is ranked 475 with 210 weekly downloads.

Keep, Keep, Keep! I've been lightly editing on Wikipedia (mostly IT articles) for about 4 years now, and read this page "in question" plus briefly read the arguments for its deletion above, and I find the article quite useful and the software it describes is real (including progress documented by 3rd-party: about 45 write-transactions per month on SourceForge since 2009.04) and (if it really works as it says) the software is also notable (on the List of project management software it is 1 of only 5 entries is Open Source (about 3x more are Proprietary) which has has at least 6 of the 7 key features for project management software -indeed that Wikipedia page (so its entry in Wikipedia) is how I found out about it; and considering that there are 80 entries on this list, it being 1 of 5 is quite notable). Consequently not only do I think this article should be kept, but I am rather angered by the suggestion that it be deleted to the point that it makes me wonder if real reason for such an apparently ridiculous request is to seek new product's failure, as perhaps by one of the about 3x more makers (about 60 all told) of Proprietary variants (again see List of project management software) fearing that their software will (perhaps appropriately) be replaced by newer Open Source versions appearing such as this as this. So in short, here is another vote to "Keep!", by outside observer, also wondering if this seemingly ridiculous request to delete is really from one of the many potential disgruntled incumbent competitors wrongfully upset that these new Open Source versions starting to appear may quite appropriately the take business away. --MBParker (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't "vote", we collect opinions of whether the article complies with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. As such, finding the article useful or the subject real is not a reason to keep. Haakon (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at WP:BIG. Your source is an automatically generated statistical page that doesn't have any actual coverage of the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endeavour Software Project Management is taking the world by surprise by becoming the first Open Source solution that incorporates real project management for software projects by supporting real software artifacts instead of being a simple task based solution that attempts to be a jack of all trades for project management. More than than 100 downloads a day also 12 independent user reviews who give a 100% thumbs upand a growing user base community worldwide are statement of the hard work and real talent behind this effort. Make no mistake, Endeavour Software Project Management is not an Open Source project that was created overnight, many programming hours and countless design changes were put in to creating a real world software project management solution that is here to stay. Just like 7-Zip the Open Source alternative that replaced Winzip the fact that may not have enough actual coverage does not mean that it does not exist or that it is vaporware —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's awesome for your project, and I mean that. I'm a big free software proponent. But all of this is besides the point and matters for nothing in this context. The article needs to cite sources showing significant coverage in reliable third-party publications. That is all. Haakon (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you pay close attention several projects that list what you call "significant coverage in reliable third-party publications" is nothing else than articles written by the developers themselves in websites other than the project's. I could go ahead and do that or keep dedicating my time to provide a true high quality software project management solution.Plus in your List of project management software are several projects of less importance listed that have been labeled as lacking "significant coverage" and yet those have not been marked for deletion. I could cite Concerto_(software), Contactizer and InLoox to mention only a few and you even list a defunct one SharpForge. Where is Wikipedia's impartiality on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I share your suspicion that a several of the articles should not exist. Contactizer is not among them, as it has already been nominated for deletion and kept. However, just because other non-notable products have articles, does not mean a suspension of guidelines for all articles; it simply means nobody has nominated them for deletion yet. See WP:OSE. Haakon (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Contactizer completely lacks what you call "significant coverage in reliable third-party publications". How did you established its notability then? Also the way it is written looks completely like an advertising instead of serving informational purposes which if I'm correct it is what Wikipedia claims is all about. Yes, several articles should not exist and yet they do! You are nominating Endeavour for deletion which people with the prestige of Lee Schlesinger consider notable and leaving many that should not exist up!. Then where is Wikipedia's impartiality?E-cuellar (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 20:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        In its AfD, this was pointed out: "Macworld, Macworld, Network World has coverage. This review of a competing product is measuring it up against Contactizer which is indicative of a major product in a market space." Can the same be said for your product? Haakon (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Perfect! I will then ignore all the positive feedback and requests for features that Endeavour has been receiving and instead of working hard in developing a top quality product I will redirect my efforts in running a marketing campaign by sending request for reviews and a press releases to Macworld as well as Network World. Surely this will give me what you call "significant coverage in reliable third-party publications". However in the meantime I will invite you to download and compare Contactizer vs Endeavour by yourself and form your own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, do that. Advertisement is important, not just coding. In the mean time, your article will be deleted from Wikipedia as failing our inclusion criteria. Pcap ping 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hayes and Harlington (UK Parliament constituency). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Seaman-Digby[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. Local councillor who has not been elected to a state or provincial level seat; sources are not independent of the subject (political party sites) Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hayes and Harlington (UK Parliament constituency) as he is a candidate for that office and WP:POLITICIAN requires redirects for otherwise unnotable political candidates. His local political offices do not suffice for him to pass WP:POLITICIAN; it has to be a quite remarkable case for a local politician to pass this standard; the "significant press coverage" here does not exist. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aah, I was wondering what it should be redirected to. Since that's the best course of action, is it possible for me as the nominator to withdraw and close the discussion myself, or does an admin need to do that? Obviously I won't redirect the page while this discussion is still running. Changing my nomination to Let's redirect it instead. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hayes and Harlington (UK Parliament constituency) under WP:politician AlecStewart (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The 39 Clues. (non-admin closure) mono 05:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cahill branches[edit]

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

unencyclopedic, unreferenced article on fictional characters. Written in an in-universe style which reads like a guide. The subject is worth mentioning but is adequately covered in the main article on the book series, a dedicated article is not warranted. RadioFan (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then redirect with The 39 Clues. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 01:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The 39 Clues with trimmed text, as it was split in the first place in order to try and cut down on article size. Airplaneman ✈ 03:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless size concerns are so big, then rewrite and reference thoroughly. fetchcomms☛ 03:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The main article clocks in at ~18KB, and this one at ~6KB. No need for this split. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Westland[edit]

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

Cannot see how this person is notable. He shows up in several press releases for his company, but I have not found any coverage beyond that. Haakon (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Doesn't appear to meet criteria - SimonLyall (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite a few news items quoting him, but nothing about him. dramatic (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 11:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. A merge close would have been an option but there was only one editor arguing for it. However, nothing is preventing the article from being merged anyway. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Garden Charitable Trust[edit]

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

I prodded the article due to a complete lack of WP:RS to establish any kind of notability. Someone removed the prod notice so this is the next logical step. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any reliably independently sourced information to Hong Kong Dragon Garden, for which this Trust article appears to be a WP:COATRACK. I disagree with the nomination statement in that there are WP:RS sources provided. For example, it references this article from the Ming Pao newspaper. However, most of the other text is referenced to the organization's website, concerns the Hong Kong Dragon Garden and/or is promotional. The non-independent info should be deleted and the remainder merged to the parent article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification The complete lack of WP:RS that I mentioned in the nomination refers to the fact that as far as I can tell there are no WP:RS covering the function of the trust itself as a notable entity, in that there is no reliable source that actually praises, analyses, criticises the trust or its functions etc. The source you provided simply mentions a spokesman of the trust in passing but most of the rest of the article mentions the Dragon Garden only. This in my mind does not establish notability for the trust itself neither it is sufficient coverage of the Trust as an inependent entity. Otherwise I do not disagree at all with your proposal of merging any wp:rs related info to the main article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I better understand your point now. Thanks for clarifying that. — CactusWriter | ^needles 23:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 11:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Bishop[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP. The person has had some media coverage, but all of it has been connected to his crime. He was completely non-notable before his crime and has done nothing notable since his crime. Every bit of significant coverage I could find was related to the criminal action. Also a general lack of persistent coverage. Could probably make a WP:BLP1E pitch as well. He's out of jail, the media barely noticed his release. His 15 minutes are over. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, I just dont see having a bio on every war resistor or deserter even if they get a news article. Most of the citations in this article are somewhat suspect. Perhaps there is somewhere we could merge this article? Bonewah (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The United States military lists that there are several thousand deserters since 2001, what makes this individual more notable than them. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable IMO, per the nomination. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Live (2010/2011 Tour)[edit]

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

An article for a music tour that has not yet started. Included references are either promotional in nature, fan-based or are from primary sources. The fact that it's a Roger Waters' tour is irrelevant as notability isn't inherited. This article is basically just a list of prospective tour dates, in effect acting as an advertisement for the tour yet not not really giving any encyclopaedic information. A similar article, from the same creator, was speedied a few days ago. This article's CSD tag was removed by an IP editor without comment. Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The tour will be notable for presenting The Wall in full which hasn't been done since Berlin. It will have more shows than the original Wall tour. And it is notable for having fans submit content in the form of pictures of loved ones who have died in wars. For these reasons, I believe it passes the criteria for tours that are laid out at WP:MUSIC. Dismas|^(talk) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Will be notable"? "It will have"? Definitely WP:CRYSTAL territory if you don't mind me saying so. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has already created media coverage, so when people turn to an online encyclopaedia, they expect to find more facts. Therefore, I still oppose the deletion of this article. I also agree with Dismas views. Are1981 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read WP:MUSIC, and this article clearly passes criteria. Are1981 (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Are1981 - To aid the discussion, will you please explain how it satisfies WP:MUSIC? WP:MUSIC is for bands, albums, artists, and songs. It's not for tours. The album, band, every song, and every member of the band being notable does not make a tour inherently notable. OlYeller^Talktome 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with a slightly heavy heart, since I'm a massive Floyd fan. Three of the references are not reliable sources, and another three are probably self-published. That leaves only Billboard, and I do not consider a single source to be "significant third-party coverage". The tour may be notable once its on, or finished, but as yet its just a few words and press releases. Parrot of Doom 14:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like WP:CRYSTAL. References are either unreliable and/or fail to sufficiently verify the information in the article. OlYeller^Talktome 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @User:Parrot of Doom/User:OlYeller21: How is Roger Waters' own website unreliable? How is two of the band members' own websites unreliable? And there are more media coverage, but I din't think Wikipedia had to have links to every article. Are1981 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that his website isn't verifiable, I said that the information in this article is unverifiable. His website mentions a tour but verifies none of the information in the article. Is another website used as a reference one of his? Which references are owned by his band members? Can you prove that because I see no indication of that claim (they look like fan sites). Besides that, simply stating your opinions of the notability of the article doesn't help in this discussion. Please include Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines so that your opinions hold water. OlYeller^Talktome 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article based on nothing more than a press release, and I don't normally consider self-published sources (such as artists' websites) to be reliable sources. They're good for the odd soundbite, but not much else. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For those who say that WP:MUSIC doesn't cover tours, it does. See the section named "Concert tours". Granted, it doesn't list itemized criteria but it does state what is and what is not notable. Second, for those who say that the article doesn't have any reliable third party coverage, check the USA Today article that I added as a ref. I didn't have a lot of time this morning, so I just added the one source but there must be more third party coverage. USA Today can't be the only paper writing about this. Dismas|^(talk) 19:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Even if MUSIC doesn't apply, the GNG still does, and there's enough sources there that discuss the tour in detail to support an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roger Waters is notable. The Wall is notable. Roger Waters touring The Wall is notable. One of the biggest selling albums ever, being played in full across the globe is notable. A quick search found this and this as extra third party sources. I'll add them into the article in a moment. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with every part of this comment. This comment by Lugnuts should close this discussion. Are1981 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I got here from the link in the Roger Waters article, while looking just for that. At the moment there is not so much information about this tour, nevertheless, there will certainly be, as we get closer to the tour dates. It has enough third party references and it will certainly make it in to an encyclopedic article, taking in to account the notability of Roger Waters, this album and his tours, of which this will probably be the last one. Ilarrain (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Live (2010/2011 Tour)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Wall Live (2010/2011 Tour)

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

An article for a music tour that has not yet started. Included references are either promotional in nature, fan-based or are from primary sources. The fact that it's a Roger Waters' tour is irrelevant as notability isn't inherited. This article is basically just a list of prospective tour dates, in effect acting as an advertisement for the tour yet not not really giving any encyclopaedic information. A similar article, from the same creator, was speedied a few days ago. This article's CSD tag was removed by an IP editor without comment. Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The tour will be notable for presenting The Wall in full which hasn't been done since Berlin. It will have more shows than the original Wall tour. And it is notable for having fans submit content in the form of pictures of loved ones who have died in wars. For these reasons, I believe it passes the criteria for tours that are laid out at WP:MUSIC. Dismas|^(talk) 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Will be notable"? "It will have"? Definitely WP:CRYSTAL territory if you don't mind me saying so. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has already created media coverage, so when people turn to an online encyclopaedia, they expect to find more facts. Therefore, I still oppose the deletion of this article. I also agree with Dismas views. Are1981 (talk) 11:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read WP:MUSIC, and this article clearly passes criteria. Are1981 (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Are1981 - To aid the discussion, will you please explain how it satisfies WP:MUSIC? WP:MUSIC is for bands, albums, artists, and songs. It's not for tours. The album, band, every song, and every member of the band being notable does not make a tour inherently notable. OlYeller^Talktome 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with a slightly heavy heart, since I'm a massive Floyd fan. Three of the references are not reliable sources, and another three are probably self-published. That leaves only Billboard, and I do not consider a single source to be "significant third-party coverage". The tour may be notable once its on, or finished, but as yet its just a few words and press releases. Parrot of Doom 14:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like WP:CRYSTAL. References are either unreliable and/or fail to sufficiently verify the information in the article. OlYeller^Talktome 15:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @User:Parrot of Doom/User:OlYeller21: How is Roger Waters' own website unreliable? How is two of the band members' own websites unreliable? And there are more media coverage, but I din't think Wikipedia had to have links to every article. Are1981 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that his website isn't verifiable, I said that the information in this article is unverifiable. His website mentions a tour but verifies none of the information in the article. Is another website used as a reference one of his? Which references are owned by his band members? Can you prove that because I see no indication of that claim (they look like fan sites). Besides that, simply stating your opinions of the notability of the article doesn't help in this discussion. Please include Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines so that your opinions hold water. OlYeller^Talktome 17:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article based on nothing more than a press release, and I don't normally consider self-published sources (such as artists' websites) to be reliable sources. They're good for the odd soundbite, but not much else. Parrot of Doom 17:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For those who say that WP:MUSIC doesn't cover tours, it does. See the section named "Concert tours". Granted, it doesn't list itemized criteria but it does state what is and what is not notable. Second, for those who say that the article doesn't have any reliable third party coverage, check the USA Today article that I added as a ref. I didn't have a lot of time this morning, so I just added the one source but there must be more third party coverage. USA Today can't be the only paper writing about this. Dismas|^(talk) 19:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Even if MUSIC doesn't apply, the GNG still does, and there's enough sources there that discuss the tour in detail to support an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roger Waters is notable. The Wall is notable. Roger Waters touring The Wall is notable. One of the biggest selling albums ever, being played in full across the globe is notable. A quick search found this and this as extra third party sources. I'll add them into the article in a moment. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with every part of this comment. This comment by Lugnuts should close this discussion. Are1981 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I got here from the link in the Roger Waters article, while looking just for that. At the moment there is not so much information about this tour, nevertheless, there will certainly be, as we get closer to the tour dates. It has enough third party references and it will certainly make it in to an encyclopedic article, taking in to account the notability of Roger Waters, this album and his tours, of which this will probably be the last one. Ilarrain (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Schwender[edit]

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

Non-notable small college football coach, whose article was deleted at AfD two years ago. The article was userfied at the creator's request, and promptly restored by the creator with the claim that "Discovered sources and notable events." Upon an examination of the links in the article, three of the five are broken. One is a single paragraph that doesn't mention the subject's name, the second a scarcely longer clip about the shutdown of the football program; neither source is, as WP:RS requires, about the subject or discusses him in substantial detail, and I strongly suspect that the broken links did no better. The article has been completely unimproved in over a year. This article should never have been restored, and should be promptly deleted as failing WP:BIO and the GNG both. Ravenswing 10:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article, which likewise was deleted in the original bundled AfD and was restored by the creator using the exact same sources and links as the previous one:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep setting article content aside, nominator states "promptly restored" which implies a matter of days, when in reality almost two months of research passed, and only after conferring with the deleting admin. Anyone can check the history and confirm this blatant exaggeration. As for reasons to keep, head coach of a a school that at the time was at the highest level of college football competition at a time well before organized professional football came in to prominence. Where the school and team plays now is not a concern, where it was then is the issue: 1899-1905. With that, this subject clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. Busted links can and should be fixed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Promptly" in the case of the Mark D. Nave article is over three months. Really starting to smell like a bad faith nomination. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Larsen.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You mean a nomination you do not like, perhaps, but opposing a nomination doesn't transform it into "bad faith" by that fact alone. That being said, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." You have proferred none on either subject, at any stage. You've also proferred no evidence backing up your assertion that a small Midwestern college was contemporaneously considered at the "highest level of college football competition," which of course anyone familiar with the history of college football knows is not the case, even presuming the heavily disputed premise that WP:ATHLETE includes coaches, which the text has never supported. Ravenswing 08:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply/bad faith I think it's safe to say that I like it and you don't--big deal move on. What makes it bad faith is (especially in light of your nearly identical nomination listed above) is that you are lying and grossly misleading the Wikipedia community in your nomination. That is reason alone to close this AfD and the other listed above to at least have a good faith discussion about the content of the article itself. When the nominator makes gross exaggerations and/or lies about the article (which you have, and is plainly evident through this and the other discussion) then it's time to just shut down that discussion and open a new one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply/top-level school this can be verified at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Amateur and NCAA History. NCAA didn't even form until 1906!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) You're claiming your own personal essay on whether college football generally is notable as "verification" of Carroll College's status as a top flight football school? (b) Why, yes, the NCAA did indeed only form in 1906. Who claimed otherwise, and what does this have to do with the discussion? (c) If you're bucking for a RfC, keep up with the insults and WP:AGF violations. Ravenswing 12:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/good faith Okay, I'll bite: How should I assume that you lied in good faith? You specifically stated that the three articles were "promptly restored" after deleted. This means that you must have checked the history. And since you checked the history and got it wrong, I'm led to beleive that you either lied about checking, or your checked and lied about the result. I suppose it's possible that you don't understand the meaning of the word "promptly". Which is it?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/insults No insults here. I have been very careful not to make any personal attacks. Yet I also believe that this is a bad faith nomination and have provided evidince for it. I cannot stand by and let what I believe to be a bad faith nomination go by without submitting the evidince to be reviewed by the Wikipedia community.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/essay Yes, I am referencing an essay where I was a primary contributor. That's why Wikipedia encourages the writing of essays. Essays are commonly cited for their reasons throughout AFD discussions for multiple reasons, ranging from clarifing group thinking to saving space.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/NCAA the date of the formation of the NCAA is pertinent here because Carroll College was competing at the highest level of American football at the time. There was no NCAA, no NAIA, no "divisions", no "olympic gridiorn football", and no NFL. Therefore, WP:ATHLETE is clear--Carroll College was competing at the highest level of the sport available.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In order to have proper encyclopedic scope, WikiProject College Football has endeavored to establish articles on the head coaches of the significant college football programs. That does not mean that every coach at every small college should have an article. The question is which programs are "significant." Carroll College played big-time football in the pre-World War II era, was involved in the game in which the first forward pass was thrown, and produced 13 NFL players in the early days of the NFL. Cbl62 (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Attacks on the nominator aside the reliable references are about the closing down of the team not the coach and this is effectively an unsourced BLP with a whiff of attack page since its so unbalanced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, national press coverage of central events. The situation here would be improved if the contents of both versions of the article, which are quite different, were combined to expand the current version. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, At the time in question Carroll was not a small college team. Per Cbl62, they seem to have a strong presence in the sport. Just because a school is small college now does not mean if always has been. See Chicago, Oberlin, Washington and Jefferson, Dickerson, Centre, etc.09er (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW Tone 14:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Dent-Jones (footballer born 1995)[edit]

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

probably spoof article. Web search shows nothing for him playing for Partick Thistle. On the date in 2008 the club played Ross County and not Dundee Utd and he would have been 13... Steve-Ho (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Steve-Ho (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of this young fellow existing or not, he is not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Giant Snowman 07:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete under g3, blatant hoax. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero notability. -PlainSight (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find a single trace of him existing (not even on Partick's website). Also, saying that he wears No13 for them is incorrect: only SPL teams have squad numbers. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, possible hoax as mentioned. mauler90 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A 15 year old playing games with Wiki (not Partick). Moriori (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Şerbeşti[edit]

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

Delete neither entry meets mos:dabrl, so it is a dab with no valid links Boleyn3 (talk) 07:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Del, per nom; Rdr. The two respective communes of under 8k pop'n each have single sent articles presumably machine generated by extracting sparse table entries from a national census. When someone is ready to the first article on one of the villages, they can use the title for it. If the second comes along, then someone else can fight out the question of whether there's a primary topic.
--Jerzy•t 02:33 & 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I switched my opinion to Rdr (and struck thru my earlier Del above), per Propaniac, below, in light of the river article.
--Jerzy•t 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Şerbeşti River, which appears to be the only topic that could be referred to as Şerbeşti about which Wikipedia has any information. (Otherwise delete because it's not disambiguating anything right now.) Propaniac (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has been significantly revised since my original opinion. Propaniac (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are no WP:red links on the page, so mos:dabrl does not apply. And even if it did – why should non-compliance with an MOS guideline be an argument for deletion? --Lambiam 02:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most relevant guideline is a bit further down, at MOS:DABMENTION: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." None of the entries links to an article that mentions any usage of "Şerbeşti", nor do any such articles mentioning a usage of Şerbeşti seem to exist (except for the river). The page thus isn't actually disambiguating anything, because Wikipedia has no info on any of these topics. The relevance of the MOS guideline is that if the page were in compliance with the guideline, it would be blank; there's no way to meet the MOS guideline while retaining the disambiguation page. Propaniac (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That rule is for topics that have no article of their own, but that are mentioned in another article. Since the topics you take exception to are NOT mentioned within another article, that part of the guidelines does not apply here either. Can you cite some rule that is actually offended by this page? Moreover, you ignore my remark that non-compliance with a guideline (in this case one that even explicitly invites us to "ignore these guidelines") is not an argument for deletion. How is the reader searching for "Şerbeşti" served by deleting this page? --Lambiam 17:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "That rule is for topics...": (I think you grasp that "Şerbeşti" is not a topic but an ambiguous title; for any others looking over our shoulders who don't, the four topics it could be the title for are three towns and the river.) MOS:DABMENTION does apply to the topic Şerbeşti River and that is the only reason the guidelines permit (in light of our mandate to focus on the page rather than its exact content at nom'n) a Rdr rather than Del outcome.
--Jerzy•t 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Can you cite some rule...": The page as it existed upon nom'n cannot comply with WP:MoSDab bcz per Individual entries, "These pages are to help the user navigate to a specific article", and

Per the same sec'n, "Including no links at all makes the entry useless for further navigation." No link means an entry with no effect but to clutter, which means no entry.
Per Disambiguation pages with only two entries, the clear intention is "No entries, no Dab page": the passage goes out of its way to say that a Dab w/ a primary topic entry and one other is not harmful; a Dab with one or no links cannot Dab, and as Boleyn3 implied in the nom'n, is both unnecessary and harmful.

--Jerzy•t 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Moreover, you ignore my remark...": (Oh, you don't care about rules after all!) IAR probably can't be mentioned often enuf (and perhaps if it were more often, it would be less often confused with "The rules mean nothing" or "Do what ever you like"). It is a two-sided coin:

It's impractical to get the rules exactly right, so an editor who ignores a rule may get it right.
When an editor gets it wrong by ignoring a rule, any editor^{(holding equal or greater privilege)} can revert the change and get it right.

IIRC, IAR explicitly says that it applies to itself; this ensures that it is never in effect a rule that forbids acting in accord with the (other) rules.
If you were being punished for breaking rules, you might hope for the burden of proof to be on your accusers. You're not, and the burden is on you to show, if you want to persist, that the rules are brain-dead in the situation at hand.
--Jerzy•t 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "How is the reader ... served...", we are no longer moving toward deletion, so there are three answers, depending on the reader in question, why an Rdr is an improvement:

Readers looking for the river are better served by the Rdr, bcz they go straight to the encyclopedia-grade info in the article without pointless distraction followed by an unnecessary click.
Readers looking for encyclopedia-grade info on one of the towns are better served by the Rdr, bcz they don't have to waste time reading the article on the corresponding commune in order to realize that there is no encyclopedia-grade info in en:WP on that town, contrary to what a reasonable reader would infer from a Dab entry's existence.
Readers looking for info at the level your on one of the towns are better served by the Rdr in the long run for the same reason that a Swiss Army knife is a lousy tool except in one situation: a circumstance where you can only have one tool with you. WP is an encyclopedia, not a replacement for everything else on the Web. Users who will be fully satisfied by knowing that the place is a village, and its commune and county have made a mistake in looking for that in WP. They should look instead in a gazetteer or dictionary. BTW, wikt:New York exists, and while does not fit my own priorities, it might be appropriate to Transwiki to wikt:Şerbeşti, then place a Rdr to Şerbeşti River at Şerbeşti; IMO that action is within the discretion of the calling admin even if our consensus is Rdr (or Del).

--Jerzy•t 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't agree with any of what you write, but since none of it appears to have actual relevance to any of the points I raised – which were meant as a rejoinder to Propaniac's reaction, further discussion does not seem potentially fruitful. --Lambiam 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my (belated) reply further down the page on the matter of guidelines not mentioning this specific situation. (For your second point, I would argue that it a) does not benefit the user to be informed that Wikipedia has no information on the topic they're seeking, and b) that the existence of unhelpful pages encourages their proliferation, and the proliferation of unhelpful pages detracts from the usability of this website.) Propaniac (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that readers looking for one of the Romanian towns are better served by a redirect to the river. If they are looking for one of the towns they well might not know that there are three of them, going to the river leaves them with no information. As an encyclopedia, it is useful to be able to distinguish geographical places. It is one of the things that people use an encyclopedia for. I do not see "Wikipedia is not a gazatteer" on the WP:NOT page, as encyclopedias are frequently gazatteers. --Bejnar (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do we say "Wikipedia is not a cabaret". But we imply WP is not a gazetteer, e.g. in the first line of the body text of the first of the Five Pillars:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.

The question is which elements of gazetteers are appropriate, and on which pages. Rich precedents do support gazetteer-like entries in lists of similar entries (as the main content of list articles or SIAs, or accompanied by the prose of typical articles), and inclusion of the information content of a gazetteer entry, as prose integrated within the prose of an article. You've already heard what precludes unlinked or misleadingly linked Dab entries from serving as excuses for putting gazetteer entries into Dabs, which are list-shaped navigational mechanisms but not a kind of list that mere gazetteer entries may be included in.
If, e.g., the applicable commune in Bacău County can be identified, and its villages listed in a new article whose topic is that commune, a mention of Şerbeşti would result; some reasonable editors would be willing to consider tolerating a entry on a Dab-page that any editor could replace the contemplated Rdr with. (I might well not, but even so the matter would not be likely -- in contrast to the atrocity you are advocating on this page -- to lead me to devote the AfD energy that this one has.)
--Jerzy•t 03:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a reader looking for a town and being directed to a river is going to be confused as well as disappointed. Polarpanda (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st pref) or Redirect. This is not a dab page because is not disambiguating articles on WP. It is actually misleading because anyone following the bluelinks related to any of the three villages will see zero information about that village. If it remains because the intent is to give information here about the three villages, rather than to disambiguate other articles, and if the three villages are actually notable, the dab template should be removed and the title turned into a multi-stub with reliable sources. Station1 (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note - There's been an ongoing debate about this here at DAB project. The argument is about the scope of the redlink policy. A previous compromise was struck in regards to some similar pages that were being auto-created for the NRHP (national register of historic places) project because there were other advantages. In my estimation though, the underlying question about the red-link policy remains unresolved. The main difference between that and here is 1) this is unassociated with a separate project, that had specific reasons, 2) there aren't actually redlinks, so the blue-link policy applies (although the redlink policy's relevant too; again, more clarification on those two policies would be good). Shadowjams (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the linked articles mentions Şerbeşti, and therefore this page has no disambiguation function in the encyclopedia. PL290 (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to the river). The cleaned-up dab page is speediable; it has only one blue link. The other blue links were to articles that are not ambiguous with the topic. They did not mention the ambiguous title. The articles need to mention the places first, so that the usual guidelines of reliable sourcing and notability can be applied. If there then turns out to be ambiguity, a disambiguation should follow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is one way of trying to force the outcome of the debate – modifying the article under discussion so as to make it "speediable", and then recommend deletion. But speediable according to which of the criteria at WP:CSD exactly? I'm still waiting for someone to quote a specific rule of an extant policy or guideline that (a) applies to the page as it was, say, at revision 356512690, and that (b) justifies deletion. I'd also like to hear about a rule that says the topic of an entry on a dab page must be mentioned in a blue link, or else that entry must be deleted. In any case, my criterion is not slavishly following some general set of rules, but doing what is most useful to the reader who searches for Şerbeşti in Wikipedia, having seen the name somewhere and wanting to find out what that name stands for. By the way, it would be easy enough to create stubs for the three entries that have been commented out, or to add token mentions to the blue-linked articles, if that is all that is needed to keep this page from being deleted. --Lambiam 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't modify it in order to make it speediable. I modified it to observe the disambiguation guidelines, and noted that observing those guidelines left it speediable. Disambiguation pages disambiguate ambiguous Wikipedia articles. WP:MOSDAB says "Each bulleted entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide users to the most relevant article for each use of the ambiguous term", and if there's no use of the ambiguous term, there's nothing to disambiguate. The guidelines aren't slavishly followed, but they are usefully followed. I would find it difficult to stub out the articles, since I know nothing about them. If you can stub them out, there will then be ambiguity, and (only) after there's ambiguity, there will be a need for disambiguation. I will cheerfully strike my !vote above and re!vote Keep in that case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "use" in that sentence means "meaning" (as in For other uses, see ... in {{otheruses}} hatnotes). The term "Şerbeşti" does have several meanings. It is definitely an ambiguous term, whether we have five articles on topics with that name, or one, or none. So the rule is: "Each bulleted entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide users to the most relevant article for each meaning of the ambiguous term", which was definitely satisfied. 85.102.55.108 (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:DABMENTION for the expansion, which does state the "but is mentioned within another article" bit. But really, the reason for it is the problem if it's not required: mentions in articles can be subjected to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, etc. If they aren't in articles, then there's not way to vet their inclusion in dabs, and that path leads to a lot of cruft, so we avoid it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep referring to rules that do not apply to this particular case. Rule: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." Topics that are not mentioned within another article are not mentioned within another article, so this rule does not apply to them. Maybe there is another rule that applies, such as: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, and is not mentioned within another article, then no entry for that topic shall be included." Only thing is, I have been unable to find that rule. --Lambiam 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines tell you which entries to include. You're right, the (old) entries here do not fit those guidelines, so the guidelines might be read as not applying to those entries. The conclusion, however, is that the (old) entries should not be (have been) included, since none of the guidelines for inclusion apply. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam, since this is the same point we were discussing up above, I hope you don't mind if I reply down here (and sorry for taking so long, I was on a bit of a wikibreak): you're right, the rule does not explicitly say what to do if the topic is not mentioned in another article, but I think we can agree that it would be foolish to conclude that such a topic should be treated in the exact same fashion as if it were mentioned in an article, since the guideline explicitly distinguishes that. Moreover, I agree with JHJ that if the MOS does not provide any rationale or instruction for including a certain type of entry, such as a topic not mentioned in any article, the rational conclusion is that such an entry should not be included per the MOS. Propaniac (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as cleaned & expanded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly good dab page. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Inappropriate use of AfD to request a noncontroversial page move. I'll handle the move directly this time, but in future when a page needs to be deleted to make way for a page move it would be better handled by using the {{db-move}} template. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi[edit]

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

Clear content fork with Aala Hazrat; exact same individual. The articles were almost identical prior to my reverting Aala Hazrat to an earlier version and making further edits to remove POV, so this article is almost a POV fork now. This article does, however, have the better title, so this POV-laden version should be deleted, and then Aala Hazrat moved here, as "Aala Hazrat" is a POV honorific title. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wrong forum (and wrong article nominated) - If you're intending to replace the text at Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi with the text at Aala Hazrat, that's something to be dealt with through normal editing - ie, discuss on the talk page, and when that results in either consensus or apathy, go ahead and do it. I think you're also suggesting Aala Hazrat will then need to be deleted; I agree with you there, and the appropriate course would be to immediately blank it and turn it into a redirect to Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, as you're right that it represents both an unallowable content fork and bears the less appropriate name. None of that is something that this AfD is able to rule on, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact an early close might be good in case SIE wants to bring Aala Hazrat to AfD, so that we don't get the accidental result of both articles being deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting this article be deleted to make way for a move from a far more Wikipedia-appropriate version. To just delete the text currently at this article and cut-and-paste in the contents of Aala Hazrat would be to lose the edit history and discussion of the latter, which brought it to it's current semi-appropriate version. I could just delete all the text on this current article, redirect to Aala Hazrat, then put in a speedy delete of "Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi" in order to make way for the agreed text to move there. But in either case the end result is the same. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To your addendum: I don't see any need to delete Aala Hazrat, we just need to move the text from there and leave it as a redirect. I would have opted to just "be bold", but the WP:AFD specifically says that C/P Forks are a valid category for AFD. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CP/Forks are definitely a valid category but you're supposed to nominate the page title you want to get rid of, not the one you want to keep. The reason you may want to bring Aala Hazrat to AfD is that blanking the page constitutes deleting it, and it's sometimes easier and faster to get consensus for that kind of thing at AfD (thanks to the time limit) than it is to wrangle it at the talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Again, I do not want to page-blank or delete Aala Hazrat. I plan to use the Move tab to move that article (and its history) in its entirety to the proper title Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi which is currently being taken up by a poor article which I do wish to delete. Aala Hazrat will not be page-blanked or deleted; it's this page that will. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just noticed that the Discussion page for Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi is just a redirect to Aala Hazrat. Yet more evidence that it's the same article, and the bad fork should be deleted to free up the NPOV title for the good fork. Stability Information East 2 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seth J. Frantzman[edit]

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

Non notable doctoral student and blogger. Fails WP:ANYBIO, fails general notability guidelines. The article editors seem to confuse writings by the subject with "significant coverage" about the subject. On-line, one can find some blogs, twitter and facebook postings, some articles written by him, book reviews on Amazon, but no substantial coverage about him. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like WP:AUTHOR's "...is widely cited by their peers or successors" is close with several Google Scholar (remove the quotations since his middle name is not always used and minus the handful written by him, then there is another citation of him in Google Books) hits showing his work as citations. "Widely" might be questioned. There are also potential sources that are not currently shown in the article which contradicts the assertion that the available coverage is "by" and not "about". For example, Sabria Jawhar wrote this in response to the Saudi Arabia opinion. An official diplomatic response showed some notability and professionals discussing it shows even more. And although Criticism sections are frowned upon, there appears to be even more peers and potential RS discussing the guy. See the source attributed to Benjamin Pogrund as an example. I also recommend combing through the Google News Archives a little closer. It will take awhile since so may hits are simply articles he wrote but not all are. Here is a random one (I assume Cybercast News Service has a right slant but it appears reliable in this context). The article needs improvement but the minimum requirements (for an WP:IDEALSTUB at least) appear to be met or at least close enough that focus and time might be better spent finding sources over debating deletion.Cptnono (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Cptnono. Frantzman is highly prolific journalist who has a regular column in the Jerusalem Post and writes for numerous other venues. As well as the sources in the article, and the sources pointed out by Cptnono, I would add that the conservative biographical encyclopedia Discover the Networks uses several Sethman articles as a resource for their article "Israel's Academic Fifth Column". His work is referenced in the book "The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, by Craig S. Keener. He is quoted here in CNS news Harassment, Islamic Radicalism Drive Flight of Palestinian Christians and the Jewish Times of South JerseyThe Real Story, by Stephen Kramer and a further mention here in the New Jersey Jewish News by Andrew Silow-Carroll [17] Numerous letters to the editor in the Jerusalem Post mention him by name, both for praise and criticism. He is notable and it is probable that there are readers who would like to have more information about him and so this article would be important for those readers. Indeed the article could be improved (like most) but it should not be deleted. Stellarkid (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jezhotwells. A truly non-notable blogger. It seems that this article is receiving keep votes only because Frantzman's ideological views regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict are the same as certain Wikipedians. Factomancer (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your !vote is unaccompanied by any policy-based rationale, nor did you comment on the references offered, merely commented on the contributors. So noted. Stellarkid (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to understand the WP:NPA policy; an observation on why an article is receiving keep votes is not a personal attack against yourself. Chill out.

As for your claim that my vote was "unaccompanied by any policy-based rationale", I clearly seconded Jezhotwell's argument. Accusing me of not having a policy-based rationale when I clearly referenced Jezhotwell's policy-based argument is a bad-faith personal attack.

As for the "references offered" they seem to be a smattering of minor partisan websites, exactly where you'd expect a blogger to turn up. "Numerous letters to the editor in the Jerusalem Post mention him by name, both for praise and criticism." LOL! Thanks for the laugh, I needed that! Factomancer (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above - seems that enough sourcing exists to merit a very 'citeable' article. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like profs, journalists write for a living, so their publications (often argued on the basis of their number) are not necessarily sufficient to satisfy notability guidelines. The main problem I see here is that, while the subject has written articles, blog entries, and op-eds, there don't seem to be multiple, significant, and independent sources that talk substantively about him (i.e. the original reason for appearing in AfD). I initially thought the "'guardians' of Israeli academia" piece would clinch this for "keep", but when I checked the article, it only mentions him once, and rather trivially at that. Most of that article talks about other people and in more detail. The claim that he "has appeared on the BBC World Service" might also have tipped the scales, but there's no explanation of the context (i.e. was it a story about him, or was it just a short bit of him reporting something, was it multiple appearances or just one, etc.) and there's no accompanying source for this claim. The Jim Kolbe piece and its controversy strike me as a bit of a tempest in a teapot (the top hit for the title is this very wp page) and not something that appreciably furthers a claim of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that GNG is short but does it meet WP:AUTHOR in your view?Cptnono (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid not because his work has evidently had little, if any impact (see below) and so he doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR #1 (nor obviously any of the other criteria, which are fairly more specific). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Did you review the Google Scholar hits?Cptnono (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I found h-index=1, as discussed below. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. As attested by the sources in the article, he is quoted in numerous reliable sources, the clear mark of a notable writer/journalist. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the article actually show that "he is quoted in numerous reliable sources". Checking the refs, I see that ref 1 is a dead link, refs 2-5 are articles written by him in his role as a columnist, ref 6 makes no mention of him, ref 7 is an article from some organization called the "Cybercast News Service" (not Catholic News Service, as the article claims) which does quote him, ref 8 is his blog, ref 9 is his amazon.com profile, refs 10-15 are more of his book reviews, op-eds, blogs entries and such, ref 16 is terse response to ref 15, ref 17 makes no mention of him, ref 18 appears to be another op-ed of his, ref 19 is a blog that makes an oblique allusion to him (though does not evidently name him), ref 20 makes a trivial mention of him (as described above), and ref 21 is another of his pieces. The article further claims (in different sections) that he's written >50 op-eds and 8 articles in learned journals. One of these articles shows up in WoS, but has never been referenced (h-index = 0). The others seem to be in publications that are either too new (i.e. Middle East Quarterly is peer-reviewed starting only in winter 2009) or too obscure to be indexed. The truth seems to be that, with the exception of a single web-based piece from an obscure news organization (ref 7) that quotes him, this person's op-ed/blog/column work has gone basically unnoticed by the larger community. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Google Scholar is linked at the top of the page with more hits.Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Agricola44. Being quoted in reliable sources does not make somebody notable, being covered by reliable sources does. None of the sources makes anything more than a trivial mention of the person. If there are sources focusing on the person or on his work then there could be an article on him, but the article is currently a puff piece pretending to be an encyclopedia biography. nableezy - 16:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell, Frantzman is a rather prolific graduate student, who maintains his own blog, and writes op-eds in newspapers. He doesn't seem particularly notable, and the article itself has quite a bit of exaggerated puffery. Also worth noting that Frantzman appears to be a Wikipedia editor, who has edited his own article as Sfrantzman, and probably created this article on himself as Samsfranklin21. Samsfranklin21 was around for only two days, created this article and edited another on a tiny logging camp in Maine, where Frantzman is from and which Frantzman also edited in 2007, and which mentions the Frantzman family). It's clearly the same editor, and the editor was probably just creating the article as a vanity piece and didn't want their own name as the creator. ← George^talk 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've opened a sock puppet investigation on Samsfranklin21, the creator of this article. ← George^talk 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not a notability problem. Agreed with your reasoning that there is a COI though.Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - even if my suspicions that person created this article as an autobiography are correct, that wouldn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. My reasoning for my delete vote is based on a general lack of notability though. I skimmed through the Google Scholar results, but I didn't really see anything more than what you'd find for the average graduate student - a couple of papers, and a handful of citations to those papers. If the article is kept, it will need some serious work to tone down the exaggerated claims though. ← George^talk 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow bloggers (except for Romero!) or academia that much anymore so still think "widely" could be argued depending on the interpretation. It appears sufficient when couplded with the sources that are available to me still but quality wise it is not very good. I made a mention on the talk page about blowing out most of the current citations if it is kept.Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the crux of the problem for me. Even if this article is kept, where will we find reliable sources that discuss Frantzman himself? I think Frantzman wrote parts of this article himself, meaning a lot of what is contained in the article is not cited (or likely citable) to reliable sources, which will become a major problem. Even if he could, technically, have an article, where would we find reliable sources that discuss where and when he was born? ...his education? I can try to clean up the article, but I took a quick look before I commented here, and I think a lot of the information in it will need to come out, reducing what is there to a stub. If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a person is potentially notable, but nobody writes anything about them, are they notable? ← George^talk 02:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough secondary sources to summarize his views (especially the criticism). However, personal details for something like an infobox would have to be from a primary source. So keeping the balance needed to not let the article be based on the primary source would be a challenge but maybe not impossible.Cptnono (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As I observed above, almost every single source is an op-ed or some such written by him – these are not secondary sources but rather WP:OR. Comprehending the difference is crucial. I see that an article from a student-run college newspaper has now been added, but again, this is a piece from an obscure source that does not substantively discuss him. I think the elephant in the room remains: this person is a graduate student that has written lots of really really minor op-eds and blog pieces, but has not yet made the accomplishments associated with notability. I think what would have to be shown to legitimately pass here is that he won some major journalism award, or held a top or notable post in some organization (academia, news service, ed. of an academic journal, etc.), or broke a major story, or authored a body of work that is demonstrably notable by way of others having noticed it, cited it, written about it, etc. You mentioned GS cites above, but when you check, you find basically the same assessment of his work: h-index = 1. We can very safely conclude that there has not been any sort of substantial notice or uptake of his work. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Then you simply didn't look hard enough. There are independent papers citing him and secondary sources not by him provided up above. Agreed that he has not done much but one (all that is needed) of the aspects of WP:AUTHOR might be met and there is some (I doubt enough for GNG) independent coverage.Cptnono (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"up above" where? Would you kindly relist those here so that all the panelists can easily examine them? You also seem to think that sources alone are sufficient – they're only necessary. The case where some local coverage (e.g. neighborhood newspaper) talks about someone probably qualifies as WP:RS, but doesn't mean that person is notable. And, so far, this about what we have for Frantzman: really thin coverage by sources that are basically obscure. I'll gladly change my position if I see something substantive, but so far there's nothing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Up above where there are links to " – news · books · scholar · images" If you don't know how to Google sources or click on links made availableyou should not participate in Afds. This guys GNG is poor and I don;t mind people saying no but disregaring sources because you simply fail to try is ridiculous.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess you've really taught me a thing or two! I see now that you mistakenly equate citations to references with the references themselves. As I said a few items above, I did check GS and the results show nothing notable. What I really don't understand is your own contradictory position, which is to say on one hand that his "GNG is poor", but on the other hand to still advocate keep. Perhaps you should consider changing positions. Is there any credence to Factomancer's speculation above that this article is getting some "keep" votes related to the subject's ideology? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Agricola44, there is no "substantial coverage" in "reliable sources" of the subject of this article. The attempts above to pass off letters in newspapers and minor opinion peices in anewsppaer, along with co-authorships of some non peer reviewed articles. The subject fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:CREATIVE(same as WP:AUTHOR), and WP:BIO. There is no reason that has been produced for this article to exist. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jezhotwells and the lack of GS citations. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricola44's careful analysis of the inadequacy of the sourcing of this article. As a blogger and a graduate student, the only reasonable notability guideline is WP:GNG (not WP:PROF which he clearly fails) but we don't seem to have enough in-depth coverage about Frantzman in reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 14 links in Google Scholar [18] is nothing to sneeze at. He has a regular column in Jerusalem Post. He has been used as a reference for a historical work. He has been quoted in CNS a number of times, the Jewish Times, New Jersey Jewish News, Haaretz, been used as a source for Discover the Networks. Can't understand why that wouldn't be enough. Stellarkid (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably worth reviewing the sources you listed. If you actually go through the Google Scholar results, you'll find that almost none of them are worth "sneezing at". Eleven are reviews he wrote of other peoples' books; two are papers he co-wrote, and one I can't access. He doesn't have a column in the Jerusalem Post, he's an opinion columnist - someone who doesn't work for the newspaper, but sends them letters expressing their own opinion, some of which get printed as op-eds. He is cited by the Cybercast News Service, though I've only seen one such article. The Jewish Times of South Jersey and the New Jersey Jewish News are hardly notable publications (neither has a Wikipedia article, for instance). A Haaretz article does mention him as a possible member of some "vigilante group", but that's about it. Discover the Networks, a database dedicated to finding connections between people "leftwing agendas", isn't particularly notable either, as it just lists some of the articles he wrote for the "vigilante group" Haaretz mentioned, in a pseudo-blog format. Basically, his notability comes down to a couple papers he's written (that I haven't seen anyone actually cite), a lot of book reviews (especially on Amazon; again, hardly notable), and a passing mention in CNS and Haaretz. ← George^talk 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricola44. No real evidence of notability. --Crusio (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricola44 and George. (Full disclosure: My first contact with User:Sfrantzman was over the Palestinian village Artas, which he started, ....as Artas, Israel. Well, the village is on the occupied West Bank (I moved it.)) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marketcetera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD had been improperly influenced by sockpuppetry; renominating this procedurally. NW (Talk) 03:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to have some sources, even if they're not the greatest. I think this could be saved and improved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some more [19], [20], [21], [22]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Burpelson's sources. Appears to have significant coverage in reliable independent sources and thereby pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all my previous comments. Basically I think that it is notable with a comfortable quality of coverage to meet the required WP standards.Wikiphile1603 (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus to delete this article is lacking, as the sources located rebut the BLP and V concerns. Still, there is a split as to whether the encyclopedia is best served by this as a stand alone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Snitker[edit]

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

Libertarian Party candidate for US Senate in Florida. Article admits that he has had "little mainstream coverage"; sources are either blogs or obscure (and non-neutral) news sites, most or all of which appear to be reprinting the candidate's PR releases. Fails WP:BLP and WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE The Snitker campaign just called a press conference [23] to be held this Wednesday morning (4/21/10) at the Florida capitol building for a "major announcement". I move that the final resolution either be keep pending the outcome, or hold the debate open until at least 4/22/10. - PlainSight (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC):[reply]

UPDATE 2 At the press conference this morning, U.S. Senate candidate Alexander Snitker announced that he has met all the requirements and will be on the November ballot, the first Libertarian to do so in Florida's history [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]- PlainSight (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia article makes sense if he gets elected to something (or maybe even second place depending on the election), but this reads almost like a blurb off his website. Thepisky (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Ah, those poor libertarians, when will they get people to take them seriously? For this guy, I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources rising higher than WP:ITEXISTS, so delete as failing WP:N. Note that he fails all the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN also. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those of Awyllie/PlainSight's sources (below) that constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources, including 97.3FM, 92.5FM, and (maybe) NPR . - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 13 references from 10 different sources, including redstate.com and politifact.com, which are both respected sources. He is included on United States Senate election in Florida, 2010 and United States Senate elections, 2010. PlainSight (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the sources please? The mentions I saw on reliable sources did not constitute significant coverage per WP:N. His name being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles proves nothing one way or another; even if he's validly mentioned in those articles it says nothing about whether he's entitled to a stand-alone article. See also WP:POLITICIAN for why merely running for election doesn't get you a page. (If it did, I'd have one!) - DustFormsWords (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources -PlainSight (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NPR http://topics.npr.org/article/0aEb9K5cEO7pm,
- DemocraticUnderground http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x28421,
- WFTV-TV Orlando http://www.wftv.com/news/22559424/detail.html,
- NewsBlaze http://newsblaze.com/story/20100312053051zzzz.nb/topstory.html,
- Politifact (St. Pete Times/Miami Herald joint venture): http://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexander-snitker/
- Fox Business News (via YouTube) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOUvwlkK46c
- USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/topics/article/People/Politicians,+Government+Officials,+Strategists/Governors,+Mayors/Mitt+Romney/02j81Lp1iGf7t/0

Comment - NPR does appear to be significant coverage in a reliable independent source, although it's behind a paywall. WFTV-TV isn't "significant coverage" - it's a vox pop. Newsblaze is a direct reprint of Snitker's press release so isn't "independent". Politifact is a directory listing. The USA today link timed out. Anything "via YouTube" is never a reliable source because the content can't be verified to be identical to that originally broadcast. So that's ONE piece of coverage (NPR) sufficient for WP:N. Give me one more and you've got me convinced. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source Man you're tough. OK, how's this http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3892930/diamond-district-banks-threaten-housing ? -PlainSight (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, is this the right link? It sounds like they've just finished discussing Snitker; the clip you linked is discussing diamond district banks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Source And here's a non YouTube copy of the 97.3FM interview http://audio.thesky973.com/m/audio/28847768/the-drive-time-happy-hour.htm?q=snitker -PlainSight (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one appears to be good, significant coverage in a reliable independent source per WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Source Another radio interview 92.5 FM Fox News Radio Ft. Myers, FL (interview starts at 16:30 http://www.stationcaster.com/player.php?s=25&c=128&f=42892 -PlainSight (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In as much as anyone still regards Fox News as an indpendent reliable source on politics, this appears to meet WP:N. I'll go change my vote accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The NPR and USA Today links are just redirects to NewsBlaze, which appears to be a libertarian or Tea Party-sponsored site, and therefore not neutral. The WFTV and Politifact references are basically just "he exists and is running for Senate". That being said, the Fox Business News interview appears to be a legitimate reference. Got another one to satisfy WP:V (*multiple* independent sources)? NawlinWiki (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NawlinWiki, I disagree that the WFTV reference was WP:ITEXISTS because he placed second overall in the poll, beating the sitting Governor of Florida and the Democrat front-runner. -PlainSight (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet More Sources
- VoiceAmerica Talk Radio Interview http://www.voiceamerica.com/voiceamerica/vepisode.aspx?aid=44923,
- 540 AM WDBO Noting second place finish in straw poll http://wdbo.com/localnews/2010/02/tea-party-straw-poll-rubio-doc.html,
- 97.3 FM WSKY Interview (via YouTube) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSD_x4KA-Mk

Comment - See my comments above about YouTube - can never be a reliable source. VoiceAmerica isn't a reliable source (see here for why). The WDBO piece is a passing mention and does not constitute significant coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in Florida, 2010#Libertarian Party. This is the general rule required for candidates by WP:POLITICIAN. The sources are not sufficient for this guy to be notable in his own right. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I strongly believe that with the additional sources cited here, this article has met the WP:V and WP:N criteria from WP:POLITICIAN for candidates. I think this article stands on its own merit. By way of comparison, Alexander Snitker meets the criteria far better than than does Bernie DeCastro, a rival candidate for Florida's U.S. Senate seat. If these standards are to be set to an unresonably high level, they should at least be applied consistently. -PlainSight (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference with DeCastro is that he is separately notable for his reformed-criminal stuff. There is a ton of news coverage on him in that respect. Not so for Snitker. It is not wikipedia's job to give fair election coverage; it is our job to cover notable encyclopaedic subjects. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I challenge your assertion that "there is a ton of news coverage on (Bernie DeCastro) in that respect (reformed-criminal). Can you cite references? -PlainSight (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - We are not here to debate DeCastro so your "challenge" is irrelevant. But as you ask, [29] --Mkativerata (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Point taken. DeCastro is irrelevent to this thread and your citations are solid. -PlainSight (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mkativerata. The coverage appears to be entirely in the context of his candidacy, thus being a fail of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 21:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is no distinction for seperate notability outside of a political campaign in WP:POLITICIAN, only that the sources are reliable and independent of the candidate. -PlainSight (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, needless to say, I find the coverage of the subject in the article to be insufficient to pass the GNG. Ray^Talk 22:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ray, have you reviewed the additional sources listed above?
      - Yes, I now have. I hold to my redirect opinion. The interviews, while they represent press coverage, do not constitute significant secondary source reporting. With respect to the articles, this is rather obvious, you've got trivial mentions, and (my favorite) an article stating that the candidate's claim that nobody's heard of him is correct. With respect to the interviews: it is fairly common for local media to give candidates air time to make their case; this is not the same as thinking enough of their chances to writing (or speaking) at length about the candidate, for independent analysis. One just requires the giving of time as a public service, the other requires a real mental commitment. That is the essence of WP:N: reliable sources must care enough about somebody, think them sufficiently likely to be of note, as to spend a good chunk of time writing seriously about them. I would suggest that some of your sources could properly fit into the article about the Senate election, given your enthusiasm for information about this candidate. Best, Ray^Talk 01:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument is now that the source has to "care" about somebody before that source can be considered significant? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? There is nothing in WP:N that gives preference to articles over broadcast news interviews, or vice versa. Also, I'm confident that this article has met WP:POLITICIAN which requires only "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." - PlainSight (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My interpretation of "significant" coverage is that it has to be "significant:" there has to be a nontrivial investment of energy, resulting in a nontrivial amount of secondary source coverage, before something can be said to have "significant coverage" in the context of WP:N. Ray^Talk 21:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ray, I fail to understand how several 15 to 30 minute interviews on AM and FM broadcast radio shows in various markets, or an interview on a cable news network can be classified as a trivial investment of energy. You keep saying "my interpretation," however, I believe your interpretation is contrary to the very WP guidlines that you're citing. If you can show me a WP guideline stating that radio or TV interviews are not considered significant under WP:N, I will support your vote. - PlainSight (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Ray's reasoning. Sorry, but everything here seems to be in the context of his nomination, which I believe falls under WP:ONEEVENT, leaving WP:POLITICIAN as the last guideline to follow, resulting in a redirect decision. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A United States Senate campaign lasts for well over a year, and culminates with an extremely noteworthy election and political position. I don't see how a campaign for federal office could be classified as WP:ONEEVENT. In the examples given at WP:ONEEVENT, it's clear that the guideline applies to a single brief instance, such as the Steve Bartman Incident where a split-second fan decision effected a baseball game. - PlainSight (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, Snitker is the first LP to make it to the US Senate ballot in Florida's history. Very significant. 67.141.160.155 (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the below links should eliminate any WP:N objections. Also, I think the arguments for deletion under WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEEVENT have been solidily rebuked. At this point, I think it's an easy KEEP. - PlainSight (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David I. Sheinkopf[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:PEOPLE Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article does not assert notability, sources cited don't appear to support it. Leoniceno (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Although I can't find significant coverage in reliable independent sources, I can find sources showing (a) that his sources are well regarded and that (b) any number of companies he's done kosher certification for seem very proud to have obtained his services. [30] His books also appear to be widely cited (see [www.jstor.org/stable/797389 here] for an example). That could get him in under WP:ACADEMIC. He appears to be the definitive go-to guy on whether gelatin is kosher (answer: sometimes!) I got momentarily excited by hits for "Sheinkopf kosher" but unfortunately they pertain to the apparently unrelated Hank Sheinkopf. - 04:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Weak Delete - As it is written I do not think the article demonstrates notability and didn't see much in the way of supporting details on the sources (though it was an admittedly quick look). If a few more sources were added and a few sentences stating why he is notable can be found/added then I would say keep. mauler90 (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears not to meet the WP:AUTHOR notability standard. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. Searching for sources was complicated (the name w/o the middle initial appears to be rather common), so I have to judge the article as it is. Ray^Talk 21:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn". Take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P. Fay[edit]

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

Non-notable person started a canning incident, fails WP:BLP1E. Plus PROD consested. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - BLP1E doesn't apply where "the event is significant and the person's role in it is substantial". The definition of a "significant event" is at WP:EVENT, where it calls for the event to (a) meet the WP:N requirement for significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and (b) either be "a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" or "have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". Here there's no question that the article meets the WP:N coverage requirements, and by having a significant impact on US/Singapore relations it can be said to meet either or both of the additional requirements. Please note also that the purpose of BLP1E is typically not to decide whether an article on a topic should exist, but to decide whether an article on the individual should exist in addition or instead of an article on the event itself. As far as I'm aware there's no article on the event here so the question is moot. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Keep but potentially move to the event per BLP1E. The coverage is over a fairly long period of time, involves direct action by an American and Singaporean head of state, and had such wide coverage that a lack of coverage would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. As a note, "michael fay singapore" gets 3500 Gnews hits. The coverage spans 94 to quite recently including 42 hits in the last 2 years. Not exactly a flash-in-the-pan. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to establish reasonable notability and (per above) involved two head of states including the US President. mauler90 (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the footnotes and references on the page itself demonstrate this adequately. Uucp (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was huge news over a long period of time, and this article has twenty-eight refs spanning nearly a decade to demonstrate this. Fay was the subject of a significant diplomatic incident (and accompanying media circus) that continues to come up in the press to this day. Heather (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot imagine how anyone can think this subject is not worthy of an article. Just look at the article and all the references. It produced a truly immense amount of publicity worldwide. It is by far the single most significant event that has ever brought Singapore to international attention in modern times. It generated very wide interest in many countries and provoked much debate in the USA about the treatment of crime. Who proposed this for deletion, and what on earth were they thinking of? Alarics (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I guess the user who started to propose deletion on that article and thought that was not met under WP:BLP1E. He is much notable on Singaporean canning incident in 1993-1994. The article should not add prod to the article. It has many references on his arrest and return to the U.S. to live with his father and continued to change his new life. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 03:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ann K. Schwader[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources for her. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a valid author to me. Thepisky (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Hobit said, there are no reliable sources to establish notability anywhere. Google books doesn't have a thing about her, and neither does Google News: no reviews, no newspaper articles, no nothing. Thepisky, look at WP:Author: having published is not enough. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Author. Thepisky (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plenty of stuff written by her, but I can't find anything in reliable independent sources about her, and she therefore fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Sci fi and fantasy genre authors usually get covered heavily in scifi/fantasy blogs/trade publications and not in the mainstream media (unless they are stephanie meyer or JK Rowling). And subject writes scifi "poetry" which is even more obscure. I don't know why but even biggies like Robert Jordan or David Weber don't get covered in mainstream english language press, compared to writers in other areas. Oddly, the publishers push for coverage and publicity in book review blogs rather than in MSM (probably know they won't get it). I know our definition of Reliable Sources will exclude these, but FWIW there has been coverage of her (as a person) and reviews for her works in the usual places where a scifi poet/writer gets coverage - Interview1, interview2, review1 etc.

I'm well familiar with the speculative fiction small press scene in Australia, and while there are a lot of talented writers there, the vast majority simply aren't notable. And the notable ones do, indeed, get coverage and usually go on to receive a notable award (see Catriona Sparks, Rob Hood, Stephen Dedman, etc). I don't see any reason to make a special exception to WP:N for Ms Schwader on the basis of her chosen genre. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources you site are (1) her publisher, (2) a blog, and (3) a user-submitted review. So none of them reliable and independent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Neil-Smith[edit]

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

Sources come from fringe literature except for two mainstream references which it is clear, in context, deny the notability of this person as an expert. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reliable sources given in the article. Moreover, by searching Google Books, one can see that this individual is covered across several pieces of literature. The individual is a notable figure in the Church of England because he is an appointed exorcist in that Church. He is similar to Candido Amantini or Jeremy Davies (exorcist) in the Roman Catholic Church. If this article is deleted, there will be no other article on an exorcist within the Anglican Communion. On the other hand, the Catholic Church's exorcists are well represented with 30 articles in ''[[Category:Catholic exorcists]]''. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a look at the Catholic exorcist articles. My sense of them is that most of them lack real notability. Mangoe (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weap Keep, given a dozen mentions in news articles over the years that characterize Neil-Smith as a modern-day curiosity. Article should be rewritten to reflect that context and avoid coatracking as a vehicle to promote the efficacy of exorcism. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet WP:N with a large number of sources citing and providing some information about him. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite as Exorcism in the Anglican Church. Thepisky (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per LuckyLouie. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For a BLP, reliable sources are doubly important, and this article has none. No prejudice to recreation if/when they're found. Shimeru (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Zouroudis[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. unreferenced article. nothing in gnews except one article on her winning a school scholarship. [31]. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maria was a featured vocalist in the youtube hit We Are The World 25 for Haiti (YouTube Edition). Her performance was featured on CNN - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZWVY9rFBSk starting at 45 secs. I think with some care this page could be further developed to accommodate the concerns of LibStar. Jwwetzel (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC) — Jwwetzel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

that is really clutching at straws, where is the verification that Maria is actually in this clip? even if she appears in it a one off appearance in CNN does not meet WP:BIO. can you provide some other reliable sources besides youtube? LibStar (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite there being few articles which interview Zouroudis herself, there are plenty of sources which list her - just google her name. She is on nme, yoraps, itunes, last fm and various mp3 websites. She is one of the most subscribed and watched uploaders on youtube, and her official website is even set to launch soon..... keith1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1234 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to provide any evidence of reliable sources, and use a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. LibStar (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Even though she may not be famous in the public's eyes, she is quite known in websites such as Youtube and Myspace, which millions of people go on every day. Maybe soon, she will have her own label or make it out herself like Kina Grannis, who also got help from the internet. Many bands and solo artists have made it big from the internet e.g Kate Nash, who is quite well known in the UK —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Peonytree (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)]] comment added by Peonytree (talk • contribs) 12:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to provide any evidence of reliable sources, and use a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. LibStar (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing she has done makes her notable. the We Are The World 25 for Haiti thing doesn't make her notable. being on youtube and myspace don't make her notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fine. Examples of Zouroudis' popularity:

Maria at Last FM

Her song 'Daydreaming' featured on NME

Tik Tok Remix featuring Maria also at NME

Her album 'Uncovered' at itunes

Song at Yo Raps

Small Article and Video at Hilkoo

Evidence of Zouroudis' involvement in We Are the World Youtube Edition

And also here, at 2:38

There is plenty more but I do not wish to add too many external links.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith1234 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

these do not fit the definition of reliable sources. they merely verify that Maria sang songs. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. * 21:58, 12 April 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "Trevor Hunter Nelson" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hunter Nelson[edit]

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

I am unable to verify notability per WP:BIO. I was unable to locate anything of note on the author or his supposed books. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is real Drammatica (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - after removing the AFD template several times, the author has blanked the page entirely. As such, I've tagged it for CSD G7. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts wrestling[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability requirements for non-commercial organizations Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost a speedy due to lack of verifiable claim to notability. No cited sources to any claims that are there and too many redlinks and no links amongst the wrestlers. !! Justa Punk !! 23:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs to be sourced. Has been labelled an orphan since 2008. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 23:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. most of the keep votes fail to refute the nomination since they argue about "notability" rather than adress the issue of independent sourcing. No independent reliable sources means no article. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Smalley (editor)[edit]

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

Contested prod. I cannot find any reliable third-party sources on this person. The only sources are from first-party publications and YouTube. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:BIO. --White Trillium (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In WP, "notable" is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Wikipedia's goal "to be the most comprehensive encyclopedia on the planet, Wikipedia ought to contain articles on topics that other encyclopedias contain". MithrasPriest (talk)

Comment - Incorrect, in Wikipedia, notable is defined as being the subject of multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Does not fail WP:BIO. -- Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In particular, he fails being the subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - see new citations. It does pass that criterion. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How do any of these pass WP:RS? Facebook, YouTube, and Wordpress never have, and never will. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Editor of American Atheist magazine! Spacelib (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How exactly is this a criteria for keeping a biography? As of now, there are no reliable, third-party sources in this article, and I can't find any. If the only sources available come from a magazine he edits (thus first-party) and YouTube, then this article fails the general notability guide. I am afraid that your rationale looks like a simple I like it vote. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - I've added two more citations: One from Wordpress and one from TOPIX. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as editor of a notable magazine it would be very difficult to avoid being mentioned in third party publications (just common sense) Greg Bard 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would you care to provide any of these? Assuming that reliable sources exist does not mean they do. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - How about the announcement notice from a church that held a debate with "David Smalley, editor of American Atheist"? [32] Added to citations. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that none of these pass WP:RS. A church newsletter, wordpress, which allows anyone to post about anything, and YouTube do not have the level of editorial oversight to be considered reliable under current policy. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing here that meets WP:RS. Notability of magazine does not imply notability of editor. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 04:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Collins, Jr.[edit]

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

Contested CSD-A7, claim of notability as national TV network, fails WP:CRYSTAL, originally set for launch according to self-published press releases in September 2009, now set for summer 2010, no GHits, no GNews/Books/Scholar hits that are not self-published or self-issued press releases. No verifiable or reliable sources, fails notability standards. GregJackP (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:BIO. His claim to notability rests on being the CEO of what the article claims will be a notable TV network (WP:CRYSTAL). --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into his television network if that network is in fact notable, which seems borderline. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer L. Wesp[edit]

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

Subject isn't notable and the page contains unclear and possibly factually incorrect info that can not be addressed without original research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.219.159 (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no refs, no indication of notability. (GregJackP (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly sourced biography of a living person that does not indicate how she is notable. The only reference is to faqs.org, and only briefly mentions the subject. That source, disregarding the question of its reliability, only supports the claim that "Alt.polyamory was founded by Jennifer Wesp on May 29, 1992"; other content in that article is unverified. I also cannot find any other coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Intelligentsium 02:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannan Rouss[edit]

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

Declined speedy and contested prod. Fails WP:Notability. No reliable WP:SOURCES, the current ones either being from the publisher or the subject's own website. GregJackP (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this person is not notable then I gladly support deletion. In my opinion she is notable, although she is my sister. I have added a review of her book from Elle magazine and will add one from people when it is available online. It is in the 4/12/10 issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanWilliamR (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. I have also added some sources. I believe there are other, more comprehensive sources to be found out there. Silver seren^C 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, author with book out from major publisher, article now has adequate sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What adequate sources? References 1 and 3 are identical links to the mini-biography by the book's publisher that was clearly copied from ref.2—the subject's website. 4 is the book's summary written by the publisher. 5 has two sentences on the book and no coverage of the subject whatsoever. External Links 2-6 don't contain nontrivial independent coverage of the subject. External links 3 and 4 are irrelevant articles written by the subject. The video on MSN.com/YouTube is a promotional book preview made by the book's publisher. The book review (1) looks ok, but it only discusses the book, not the book's author. The subject doesn't seem to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO in general. — Rankiri (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Authors become notable by publishing notable books--that's the relevant part of their lives. The question is whether this book is notable enough yet. I don;t think it is -- WorldCat shows only 38 libraries with copies. But it has just been published, so no reason not to try again if there is major critical notice. There's a mention of her in library Journal but no review yet. Trying to have an article on a first book by an author the moment it's published tends to seem promotional. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaucho 4x4[edit]

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

Created today. Appears to be a press release almost, but Google turns up nothing more than the Wikipedia article in relation to this item. Note the date given was from four years ago. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article from Jane's indicates at least that the vehicle design exists, but indicates that Argentina has suspended its program. The two other articles here are in a language I don't understand. There is also a second Jane's article, which is a short article about the up-armoured version from 2008. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found other hits on Google, e.g. [33] particularly relating to the Argentinian cancelation of the program. There is nice picture here [34]. What's interesting is that it's apparently a joint program with Brazil, and it's not obvious whether Brazil is continuing with it. The other two languages in the above link are in Portuguese and Vietnamese.--David V Houston (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) PS: I searched 'gaucho vehicle -perego', not all the hits said 4x4. This was a comment, but I changed it to 'keep', as it is a real vehicle in use with real militaries. The article REALLY wants fixing, though.--David V Houston (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmal Group[edit]

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

PROD removed by author. No reliable sources found to establish notability of a business. Has references, but most are self-references and not useful to establish notability.

Listed awards are incredibly regional in scope and not even high ranking (#21 in the sixth-largest MSA in the US). tedder (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable, non-consumer tech service business using Wikipedia for free publicity. Advertising, coupled with an inability to use capital letters correctly: Their services encompass the planning, implementation and integration of Enterprise Content Management and Records Management, Geographic Information Systems, and Web Design & User Experience.... The company is fast growing.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable article. --White Trillium (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Component chart[edit]

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

This article has numerous issues. It's mainly a definition that is unsourced and may contain original research, and for such a general term it's very US-centric. Delete the article and merge each section to its corresponding article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & merge content into WP: record charts, but the content needs to be sorted through & verified by an expert of Billboard charts. TheWrongBoy _{talk 2 me} 03:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.99.6 (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Turns[edit]

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

Non-notable online company lacking significant coverage, which fails WP:CORP. My PROD was contested with a talkpage comment that the article had been edited so as not to be "unduly . . . promotional"; however, the problem isn't the way the article is written, it's the company's fundamental lack of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather obvious. No coverage by reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:WEB. Recommend delete. Aditya Ex Machina 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinanas[edit]

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

Non-notable advertising campaign and/or April Fools' Day joke. Frank | talk 20:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 01:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 - it's an April Fools joke, which the article even admits. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 16:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose speedy deletion (but still support deletion) - I do not think this satisfies G3 as vandalism because the subject of the article itself is not made up. A page should only be considered a hoax/vandalism if its deliberatly false. While the article's subject has to do with someone making something up, the fact that they DID make it up is still true. Still, I think it's non-notable and should be deleted (just not under CSD). Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waitrose. It certainly is not a G3 speedy delete ("blatant hoaxes" in G3 refers to something that the article's creator made up, not a reliably-sourced article about someone else's joke -- there's a big difference). However, this wasn't notable as far as hoaxes went-- got a newswire story about it [35] on the day it happened, but seems to have missed out on any historic notability [36]. Mandsford (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not made up and should be kept because it is a notable event. Chocolate4921 18:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate4921 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher "Chris" Tracy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christopher "Chris" Tracy

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

Non-notable fictional character with no evidence of real-world notability and no significant coverage in reliable sources, article is essentially a plot summary of Under the Cherry Moon. I mentioned the lack of notability at a merge proposal in August 2009, and subsequently redirected the article, but now 96.250.181.28 has reverted that twice, so I'm bringing it here for consensus.

I have no objection to this being redirected again, but deletion would be preferable, the title is a very unlikely search term; the character is called Christopher Tracy, the chances of anyone searching for Christopher "Chris" Tracy are are non-existent. Markfury3000 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as stated by nom, the character has not managed to prove notability by receiving deep coverage by and in reliable secondary sources. Also, the character has no impact in popular culture. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deep coverage is not a WP requirement -- for anything at all. The most we ever need is substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The character has no cultural notability outside of the Prince movie. Warrah (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the fictional character is from only one film, and details of the character can be discussed at the film's article. There is no indication here that the character would transcend the originating film enough for its own article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Song of a Long Forgotten Ghost[edit]

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

Demo albums are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also, there no way to verify any of it. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soman (band)[edit]

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

Unreferenced band, barely asserts notability, nothing in the article indicates meeting any criterion of WP:MUSIC. PROD-deleted once, then PROD'ed again. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the band meets criterium no. 5 of WP:MUSIC. Both Out of Line and Infacted are important independent labels for this kind of music. JM.Beaubourg (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence they are important labels as asked for by wp:music, vague comments about this kind of music do not a label important make. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to Out of Line's web site, their artists include And One, Blutengel, Combichrist,Hocico, Icon of Coil and Suicide Commando to name just a few of those that jump out at me. There is little doubt in my mind that Out of Line meets the criterion in wp:music. I don't recognise enough of the artists on Infacted to be able to comment one way or the other about that label, though. Roy Badami (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I should declare that it was I who requested restoration following PROD; however I have no vested interest in this article beyond this being a genre of music I listen to, and a desire for Wikipedia to be a useful resource (to myself and others). FWIW I possess one album by Soman and have seen them play live once.

Band seems at least somewhat worthy of note to me. It's certainly not obviously non-notable (IYSWIM).

The single Unleash appears to have been a #1 hit in the German alternative chart, so arguably potentially satisfies criterion 2 of WP:MUSIC. See http://www.amazon.com/Mask-Soman/dp/B000RMJ5U2

The band's first album was released on Out of Line and it was rereleased on Metropolis; both of these are clearly (IMHO) important independent labels (I hesitate to use the term indie) in the sense defined in criterion 5. Their subsequent albums were released on Infacted Recordings, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to express a personal view on whether that label meets the definition of important independent label beyond commenting that I believe Grendel is on Infacted, and I would probably expect Grendel to qualify as notable. So Soman at least potentially satisfies criterion 5.

According to the (unsourced) statements in the article, the band has played at Wave-Gotik-Treffen, M'era Luna and Infest which are certainly (IMHO) three of the major European music festivals within the broad goth/industrial scene

Also according to the (unsourced) statements in the article, the band has supported an undoubtedly (IMHO) notable artist (VNV Nation) on tour.

Roy Badami (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus O. Mohr[edit]

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

This article has been marked as having unclear notability since October 2007 and I see no evidence of notability or satisfying notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victor Mayer, where he is already mentioned. Appears to lack significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 05:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus. Redirecting on the advice of Smerdis of Tlön. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UhClem[edit]

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

Categorized as an album, but apparently a non-notable fictional character. The sole source makes a passing reference to this entity, but does not establish notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree this is a bit obscure, I have run across the phrase "uh, Clem" in several other contexts My two cents, for what its worth, is that someone wondering what it means would be able to find out here and it should stay. Maybe change the categorization though.Kyuss-Apollo (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Think We're All Bozos On This Bus. My opinion is that ITWABOTB is one of the all time classics of world literature, ranking up there with The Iliad or Pride and Prejudice, but that's just me. This character is the chief protagonist of the story. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Valentine's Day. Tone 14:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day flowers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Valentine's Day flowers

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

What? This article is not necessary, everything is already covered at Flower. This is not even BJAODN material. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; also redundant to Valentine's Day, original research, and likely intended to sell flowers: People express their love for each other by means of gifts, of which flowers play a prominent role. In fact, it is said{ that flowers and chocolates are so essential that those gifts would be taken for granted if presented, yet will be noticed if not presented. It is said that the tradition of offering flowers was originally Persian and it was introduced to the west in the 18th century. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Valentine's Day. Surprisingly, there isn't a section in that article describing the gifts made on that day (flowers, box of candy, intercourse, etc.) I agree that it's unnecessary, in the same way that Christmas present is (it redirects to gift). Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somehow. Looking at the St. Valentine's Day article, there is quite a list of things already existing in the regional celebrations section. Given that Valentines Flowers may well be particularly North American??? creating a 'Valentines Flowers' or 'Valentines gifts' section outside the regional celebrations may be NorthAmerican-centric. Not sure. But given the regional complexity of the celebration, I think this stand-alone is probably too simple.--David V Houston (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere into Valentine's Day - I'm sure that there's somewhere it go in there. And to David (above me) - giving flowers on Feb 14th happens in the United Kingdom as well (I've seen plenty of girls on the bus home with bunches of flowers (but not since 2008, as it's been on the weekend since)). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Valentine's Day article. It seems it's the best place for it. --Bsadowski1 21:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mac Weekly[edit]

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

Student newspaper with limited to no notability, as evidenced by the lack of sources stretching back almost three years. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have now added a couple of references to the article, admittedly one published by the newspaper itself, for verifiability purposes. Per WP:NMEDIA, notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that "have a significant history" and nearly 96 years of publishing satisfies that criteria. Another notability criterion is "are frequently cited by other reliable sources" and a trip through the Google News archives uncovers The Mac Weekly being cited by the Chicago Tribune ("With that in mind, the local student newspaper, "The Mac Weekly," took the streak-breaking story in stride, burying it on page 6.") and The New York Times ("The judgment of the campus paper, The Mac Weekly, came the next morning in a three-panel cartoon of Mr. Humphrey with balloons inscribed "blah, blah, blah"), among numerous other sources. (Searching is complicated by the frequent juxtaposition of "Mac" and "weekly" in reference to computers and college sports.) - Dravecky (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Vana, Jr.[edit]

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

As far as I can tell this is an amateur golf player whose achievements are mainly in amateur competitions in his home state. Nationally he got into the last 64 one year in the American National Amateurs. Obviously he has not played in any international amateur competition. He is not ranked in the first 4000 world amateur golfers by the Royal and Ancient see: http://wagr.randa.org/default.sps?pagegid={0D1A5023-CBB1-4322-90CE-2AFCE1A18FFC} Porturology (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Porturology (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, my error in using the search engine - he is ranked at No. 1,600 Porturology (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a long way from the top amateur level of his sport. The only thing that could be notable is getting a PGA Tour start, but as it was one start back in 2004 I hardly think it worthwhile keeping the article for that. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear notable per WP:ATHLETE. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zendesk[edit]

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

Contested Prod and Prod2. Non-notable software. Sources consist of a press release, two funding announcements (i.e., press releases of another sort) - both from the same site, and a self-published reference. External links are to company's website and blog. GNews has 7 hits (3 press releases, 3 blogs); GScholar has 1 relevant hit, consisting of an ad link apparently. GregJackP (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable startup. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources to support notability per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TechCrunch is a reliable third party. I would go so far as to say that they are the best source for startup press. No non-notable startups are mentioned there. --CygnusPius (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There might be a point of view/conflict of interest with regards to User:Akleha's recent edits to the Zendesk article. Google search for Akleha -> Amanda Kleha -> The Small Business Web showing Amanda Kleha's position in Zendesk The mad michael (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I read http://techcrunch.com/about-techcrunch/ , Techcrunch does not appear to be a reliable source, being blog-based and largely editable. I could be wrong... Peridon (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles in question were written by Eric Schonfeld and Robin Wauters. --CygnusPius (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who are? Their names mean nowt to me. Peridon (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see how this meets WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funding announcements, even if reproduced by reliable sources, do no raise to the level of non-trivial converge in my view. I expect something like product reviews for a meaningful Wikipedia article. Pcap ping 23:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J. T. Wall[edit]

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

Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Neutral without prejudice to restore. As article stands, there are no sources, and that pretty much clinches it for me. As for WP:ATHLETE, big deal. Checking sources shows that subject matter may be notable through general notability guideline and, should the article be re-written and these sources pan out to be of good quality, I would likely change my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources that give notability. It appears that he played professionally in the NFL, which satisfies notability for WP:ATHLETE. Silverseren^C 04:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment while it doesn't look like he actually played in the NFL, I'm at least to neutral now. There's apparently some notabiity outside WP:ATHLETE and the article is coming together somewhat. Give it time to cook.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ATHLETE is deliberately ambiguous, in order to allow users to refine its for particular sports. J.T. Wall doesn't show up in player registers (such as http://www.pro-football-reference.com/ or the ESPN Pro Football Encyclopedia register or a team website all-time player list) since the standard for those is that the person has to have appeared in a game for an NFL team. A person who is on the active roster, yet never gets on to the field during the season, doesn't get included in reference books or websites. In that sense, it cannot be said that Wall "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". He was on the practice squad for the Pittsburgh Steelers, but never played in a regular season game, nor was he on the active roster. He played in preseason (exhibition) games for the Steelers and the Colts, but few people would consider that to be fully professional competition. As a taxi squad player, he was on the payroll of the Pittsburgh Steelers, but the same could be said for the secretary in the front office. WP:ATHLETE casts a wide net, but not that wide. I don't think he would pass under WP:GNG either. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, never actually appeared in an NFL game. I don't think our standard should be that merely being drafted justifies a Wikipedia article. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Especially since the NFL Draft had 32 rounds at one point. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:N and therefore WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE (both defer to WP:N). Sources in article are enough. Hobit (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that he meets WP:N, in that he didn't get significant coverage, and I don't think that he gets the free pass from WP:ATHLETE. It's important to note that WP:ATHLETE is something that presumes inherent notability for certain persons, meaning that it bypasses the entire debate over whether someone is "notable" enough. Someone who can be shown to have played for only one down in an NFL game in 1932 would qualify for a pro football register and would be automatically covered under WP:ATHLETE, notwithstanding other policies. I agree with Nawlin that we have to draw the line somewhere. Mandsford (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources in the article certainly seem to be significant coverage in that at least a couple are solely about him...
  - [37]
  - [38]
  - Also 3 paragraphs in [39]. The other references are passing mentions but assume that the reader knows who he is... Hobit (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search for this guy's name and the word "football" shows over two hundred results! [40] Dream Focus 00:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This'll probably close as a no consensus, which works for now. Scout.com, of course, covers hundreds and hundreds of athletes, as would any scouting report that looks for potential stars. I'm not at all surprised that a Georgia Bulldog would have an article about himself in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, or that a Steeler draft pick would be written about in Pittsburgh and the surrounding area. However, there's a good deal of support for J.T., and I can see arguments for and against his inclusion. Mandsford (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I guess my thought would be that the coverage doesn't need to be surprising. He just has to be found "worthy of note" by reliable sources. I think those sources show that. Not great coverage I fully agree, but seemingly above the bar. Hobit (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus Per nom, notability may be marginal but not marginal enough to delete at this point. Rescue is the right approach. Mike Cline (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Youssef[edit]

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

Notability is marginal at best and author appears to have a COI issue. Eeekster (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. I have also formatted the references and added two sources. Silver seren^C 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Has worked in multiple notable films and the coverage in Wired magazine and MSN Entertainment just about satisfies WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wired magazine mentions her. Dream Focus 05:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is recognized, as shown by the sources, by various notable publications, which states her notability. Silver seren^C 07:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, the above !vote has been canvassed here. --87.79.176.167 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was not canvassing, he was asking me a legitimate question. I added most of the references for the page a while ago, so I do feel like it is a keep vote regardless, I just forgot to vote. Silver seren^C 21:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not significant indepth coverage. there is a Youssef that went to a school called Gower, but when you discount that, no real coverage [41]. LibStar (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no decent references. The wired sexy geeks "article" is particularly worthless, since it's just apparently just a list of people that readers nominated, but the others aren't much better. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I question that any of that coverage is significant enough to meet the guidelines--a mention alone in Wired is not enough, and the COI issue doesn't help. Shadowjams (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The COI is hypothetical. Sources such as MSN, IMDB, IGDA and CG Con are recognized credentials. Soulweaver577 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user's two edits to this AfD page are their only contributions to Wikipedia. The account appears to hav ebeen specifically created to post the above comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Borderline, but just squeaks over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Control (music company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Request Deletion as a non-notable company. The company is not listed in either Hoover's or Dun & Bradstreet. There is no coverage in secondary sources. The claimed notability is from work done by the partners at Lionsgate, and even then credit appears to be claimed for more than their work. There is no basis for notability. The first Afd was improvidently closed (WP:NPASR) before anyone commented on the original request. It had two relistings, but they were within an hour and twenty minutes of each other, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative Control (music company) --Bejnar (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left friendly notices of this Afd at the talk pages of King of Hearts who closed the original Afd on the same day that it was relisted (twice), and B.Wind who objected to a prod after the first Afd. --Bejnar (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is procedural - once an article has been prodded or gone through an AfD, it cannot be deleted through prod (in fact, a prod is not permitted under these circumstances), but only by AfD or speedy deletion (see WP:PROD). I reserve the option of forming an opinion about this article at a later time, if appropriate. B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I haven't seen sufficient evidence of meeting WP:CORP. B.Wind (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any significant coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death's Head (series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN Book series, with only trivial coverage Fails WP:NB CTJF83 chat 05:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm seeing enough review coverage to justify an article, if only just. Here's one for a start: Kirkus review, they seem to love it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The notability is not an issue according to the comments and refs at the moment, the article needs improvement and not deletion. Tone 14:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of Harald Welte's blog, 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}}.

David S. Miller[edit]

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

I can find no evidence of this individual meet the bar of WP:Notability FellGleaming (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigh. Have you even tried? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for citations or mentions of him in third-party publications. None. The sources in the article are links to a blog, a web forum, a list of 100+ maintainers of the Linux Kernel (of which his is just one, and not indicated as having any special status). The only thing that seems to come close is his giving a speech at a minor regional developers conference, but that still seems to be well below the bar. FellGleaming (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. Just wow. But perhaps you do need some help - try these:
  - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  - Just look at all those books that refer to him? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not an academic nor a creative professional: no publications found, not a subject matter expert, only ports other people's work. No references in the Personal section (admittedly, the only section with information that Linux developers didn't already know). Reads more like a press release: "famously asked", "conquered", "has been key", etc. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't be offensive and claim that the person responsible for the networking subsystem and an architecture is not a subject matter expert. In fact that's not just offensive, it's completely daft and slanderous. I'm sorry, but if we can have an entire layer of policy against slanderous statements against living people in articles, we should not publish such things in these discussions either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not every entry has to fall under the "academic" or "creative professional" category to be notable. In general, AfDs should really be made by people from the domain, qualified to pass such a judgment. Passing judgment that someone is not notable when you don't know the domain is a bit unfair, don't you think? Anyone who says that David Miller is not notable CLEARLY knows NOTHING about the Linux & FOSS field. Example: have a look at Linux.conf.au - check the keynote speakers of 2001. LCA is one of the world's foremost Linux conferences, the other two keynote speakers are evidently NOT non-notable. Plenty of evidence out there to prove Dave's notability. Achitnis (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of Linux MAINTAINERS generally does not include any ranking. Linux kernel developers consider themselves equals. David S. Miller has been maintaining not only a Linux architecture port (for Suns SPARC CPUs), but he is one of the core developers and maintainers of the Linux kernel networking stack, including its TCP/IP implementation. This TCP/IP implementation is running on tens if not hundreds of millions of nodes on the Internet. He has given keynote speeches at all the major Linux kernel developer conferences, including Linux Plumbers 2009 [42], linux.conf.au (mentioned in the wikipedia article), Ottawa Linux Symposium 2000 [43]. Futhermore, he has been giving technical presentations at all the other major technical Linux conferences such as Linuxtag [44], Linux-Kongress [45], just to name a few. I agree with Achitnis comment that "notability" should be established by somebody in the field. Ask anyone involved with Linux kernel development whether he things DaveM is notable, and you will get an unanimous response. -- Harald Welte 13:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.228.171 (talk)

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

Keep. He is one of the main maintainers and developers of the Linux Kernel. If you have a look at this LWN.net article [Who wrote 2.6.20] you will see that he is one of the top 20 contributors and the one with the most signoffs after Andrew Morton and Linus Torvalds --Christof Damian (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. David Miller is a prominent, notable figure in the computer field and very worthy of a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.21.48 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. David Miller is a major figure in the Linux world. there is no justification for removing this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.225.71 (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. David S. Miller is a prolific Linux developer and has made significant contributions to the Sparc port of the Linux kernel, among other fields. Porting an operating system kernel to a different architecture is a creative work, as it not only entails adapting other's work, but also creating whole parts from scratch. In this regard, David S. Miller is in fact an authority on the subject, with close to 15 years of experience. Some of his orginal work can be traced back to [1994] MarceloMagallon (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. In that case everyone here should be in the GCC steering committee http://gcc.gnu.org/steering.html , who uses GCC anyway ... wait, a gazillion people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.86.218 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sigh, I see this deletion request must have found its way to some Linux message board somewhere. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 17:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It did not. Did you see WHO posted a message after mine? If you don't, then you probably aren't even qualified to put up this AfD. User:Joy tried to gently warn you up front, but you ignored it. This AfD was a serious mistake, and should be closed NOW to avoid further embarrassing people. Achitnis (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is somewhat true, as Harald Welte - another notable developer - has mentioned this case in his blog. However, this is totally irrelevant. The simple truth is that FellGleaming failed to do his homework before proposing to delete the article. While this is a shame, it can happen. But failing to admit the mistake and instead trying to distract by making such claims with the implication that the "keep"-voices are all shills is outrageous and makes the mistake worse. -- Kju (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Harald Welte - another notable developer - has mentioned this case in his blog." Thank you Kju; I knew something similar had to have happened. The simple fact is that, if you define any subject narrowly enough, a person is notable. In the field of software, this person does not quality. In the field of software development, he does not quality. In the field of Linux kernel developers, he may well be notable, but such narrow definitions are rarely helpful. I'm sure the model airplane builders of America have a list of people they consider notable as well. Wikipedia is not a page for Vanity Pages. Is a biography about this person of any possible interest to someone who doesn't already know who he is? That is the unanswered question here. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 19:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the field of software, this person does not quality. In the field of software development, he does not quality. In the field of Linux kernel developers, he may well be notable, but such narrow definitions are rarely helpful. What makes you think that he does noy qualify in the field of software development? Do you have any evidence of that? Citing the [Wikipedia:BIO] guidelines ..., engineers, and other creative professionals: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work. Now ask yourself is Linux a significant or well-known work? No doubt. Did David Miller play a major role in co-creating it? I have no doubt about that: The Linux kernel network stack is one of its major components. Linux would be insignificant if it wouldn't have such a network stack. In fact, a lot of the early (and still today) sucess of Linux is due to its extensive networking features. Porting Linux to the SPARC and UltraSPARC CPU architecture is also a major role in creating Linux as it exists today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HaraldWelte (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course he's notable. Sometimes I wonder if the deletionists understand what the meaning of an encyclopedia is meant to be. Unless your suggesting we delete the entry for Linus Torvalds while we are at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Narrow-minded wikigays morons wants to delete everithing they not familiar with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.189.251.112 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete on the basis of the article, he fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, at the risk of sounding like a complete groupie, I am compelled to comment again and express an utter dismay with this kind of reading of the actual guidelines at hand. Wikipedia:BIO#Creative professionals, which says it applies to engineers, states among the requirements the creation of a significant new concept. This is eminently true for the subject at hand because Linux on SPARC simply did not exist before he created it. It could technically be argued that it's insignificant because its user base is probably significantly smaller than that of Solaris on SPARC, but as a development effort, it's significant at least as much as any other operating system kernel port to a different architecture. And for extra value it was done standalone, without complete support from the architecture creator. Also, another criterion is satisfied - having a major role in creating something covered by multiple reviews - which is the Linux networking stack. So where is this failure to observe the WP:BIO guidelines? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the Linux Foundations report (April 2009) [46] on who writes the linux kernel David S. Miller is the top contributer (that is number 1) to the Linux kernel over the last 5 years. I call that significant! If someone reads that report, e.g. an unknowing journalist, I think its relevant to be able to look this person up on Wikipedia. --Brouer (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has not been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. That's the only definition of "significant" that really matters here. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the best sources WRT linux is lwn.net, which should have been evaluated before this AfD. More specifically, google site:lwn.net david miller gives 1 020 results, of which [47] and [48] should be added to the article, among others. BTW there was another Afd in july 2008, but I can't find it. Comte0 (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate sources for notability. A somewhat incomprehensible nomination, considering the wide known public notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep DaveM is one of the key linux networking architecture implementors. Most recently he's been implementing multiple queues on the existing Linux stack, primarily driven by the needs wireless networking and 10G Ethernet, and presented at the netfilter workshop held in Paris, France [49]. He's a known expert on Sun and Sparc architectures and infamously was once accused by Bryan Cantrill of Sun, of never having kissed a girl in ad hominem. [50] yanfali 16:00, 17 April 2010 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.228.85.230 (talk)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To those who are making arguments in favor of this entry, it would be very helpful if you would incorporate your specialized knowledge on notability into the article. Well-sourced, valid claims within the entry itself will certainly silence any objections. Thanks Fell Gleaming^(talk) 03:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's not waste any more time on this badly researched AfD that will, without any doubt, fail. Let's go spend our efforts beefing up the actual article so that it in itself becomes the primary shield against deletionists. Which would, of course, make it self referential in a way, which brings up a few questions of its own, but never mind :) Achitnis (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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