Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 16
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Article was improved during the course of the AfD, all comments since improvement have been keep. (non-admin closure) Monty845 22:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bat World Sanctuary[edit]
- Bat World Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page should be deleted. Reason, A7=Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. They are merely one of thousands of bat rehabilitators in the US alone. All of this entry is cut and paste from their website. There is no independent verification. Most of this entry was made by a member of the organization. Just because they write they are "world renown" does not make it so. LuLauren (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)— LuLauren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as both Google News and Google Books shows in-depth coverage of this organization in reliable sources. Improve though normal editing rather than deleting. Note that nominator is a new single purpose account whose only contribution to Wikipedia so far is to try to delete this article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck through your "Delete" !vote, LuLauren, because you are the nominator and your nomination itself is your recommendation to delete. You can participate in the debate as much as you want (based on policy and guidelines), but you can only recommend "Delete" or "Keep" once per debate. I hope you understand. Cullen328 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response LuLauren, please study Wikipedia's deletion policies carefully before making further arguments for deletion. The article in question does not mention Amanda Lollar right now, or claim that she is a scientist. The article does not claim "international renown". Your use of words such as "frightened" and "vindictive" are not appropriate to a discussion of the article under discussion here. Wikipedia relies entirely on what reliable sources say about a topic, not at all on your personal opinions. What you say may or may not be true, but unless your charges are reported in reliable sources, they are irrelevant and will carry no weight in this debate. I will assume that you are acting in good faith, but must ask you to base your arguments on our established policies and guidelines. Editing by those with a conflict of interest can be corrected by further editing by those committed to the neutral point of view, if the topic itself is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. Google books reveals sufficient non-trivial coverage to justify an article. Nomination strikes me as a little odd. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 08:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Coverage in the press appears to be quite common as the Google news search results show many hits. Perhaps not all of them represent substantial coverage but certainly enough of them do to establish notability. In addition to the references added to the article by Cullen328 (thanks!), there's also this and this as additional examples. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to the sources added by Cullen, this story from CBS News asserts that the facility is "the largest bat rescue center on the planet". I added it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 00:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toby Scott Ganger[edit]
- Toby Scott Ganger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor actor with no notability. The only source cited in the article is IMDb. The article has been tagged for refimprove for eighteen months, and even before that there were "citation needed tags", but nothing has been done to deal with the issue. I have looked at Google search results and found, apart from IMDb and Wikipedia, sites selling his DVDs (e.g. ebay, amazon, blockbuster.co.uk, media-pricer.co.uk) and listing pages giving no more than absolutely minimal mentions (e.g. rottentomatoes.com, behindthevoiceactors.com, tvrage.com). None of these gave even as much coverage as his IMDb entry, which itself is short by IMDb standards. I did not manage to find even one source which gave substantial coverage. (Note: the article was deleted via PROD, and restored following a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.) JamesBWatson (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Searching under both Toby Scott Ganger and Toby Ganger resulted in listings from sites such as those mentioned in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not appear notable. "Best known" for voicing a character in an animated movie, where he is listed ninth in the credits. Not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus about notability, but at least the article now has reliable sources. Sandstein 09:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ole Savior[edit]
- Ole Savior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. Only non-self-published source that directly discusses the individual is a blog post. William S. Saturn (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: The above statement is no longer true, as I have added several additional sources to the article referencing various newspaper articles. Difluoroethene (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Many potential third-party sources to use include but are not limited to: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Difluoroethene (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article, adding many new sources to verify Savior's notability in Minnesota. It's also worth noting that Ole Savior gets 1,020,000 Google hits ([8]), which is almost as many as Rent Is Too Damn High (which gets 1,030,000 [9]). Ole Savior is in many ways the Jimmy McMillan of the Midwest, and the two candidates have received similar amounts of media coverage; in my opinion, both pass the GNG. Difluoroethene (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually if you google "Ole Savior" as a phrase there are about 650 individual ghitsPorturology (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article, adding many new sources to verify Savior's notability in Minnesota. It's also worth noting that Ole Savior gets 1,020,000 Google hits ([8]), which is almost as many as Rent Is Too Damn High (which gets 1,030,000 [9]). Ole Savior is in many ways the Jimmy McMillan of the Midwest, and the two candidates have received similar amounts of media coverage; in my opinion, both pass the GNG. Difluoroethene (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor political candidate who has never won political office. As far as I can tell he has never won more than 5% of the vote. One of the articles quoted is an essay on whether such fringe candidates are worthy of press attention or are mere distractionsPorturology (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. Gage (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per first keep. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I love politics, and this is the first time I have ever heard of the guy. He is not notable at all. The fact that a person has run for a position many, many, many times doesn't mean he should have and article. Meanwhile, it is a terribly written article. Most of the sources are from HIS OWN WEBSITE. Soxrock24 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perennial candidates who have generated media attention are regularly included on Wikipedia. - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG which states that the subject must be discussed by a reliable source in detail beyond merely a trivial mention. Much of the third party sources cited above by Difluoroethene, such as Politics1 (blog) and Google search results (see WP:GYNOT) do not meet WP:RS standards, and several of the ones that do qualify do not give the individual significant coverage, but rather little more than a mention. The ones that cover him significantly are are all local press. There is no establishment of notability beyond perhaps a small degree of local celebrity status in the area of his residence. Which in not enough to justify an encyclopedia article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Difluoroethene. --Dezidor (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there appears to be a special breed of Minnesotans who run over and over again, and raise themselves up to the level of general notability by dint of being in the news repeatedly over many years. Harold Stassen is one such person; this subject appears to be another. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Harold Stassen was Governor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article cites heaps of sources that are either reliable third party or governmental. Notability seems well-established. BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The audibles[edit]
- The audibles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1.The article does not have any sources 2.It should be "The Audibles" not "The audibles" 3.The article does not provide any useful information, appears to be "fan made". MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this eligible for a G4 Speedy deletion as a copy of The Audibles deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Audibles? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with Salt - It appears that Duff is correct. Be suspicious of article titles that are not properly capitalized. Changing the capitalization is a common trick for getting around prior deletion decisions. Someone can try to recreate the article if they wish, but the band isn't any more notable than it was the first time. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Clear keep consensus supported by policy. (non-admin closure) Monty845 22:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary School Musical[edit]
- Elementary School Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Orphan dab; nav function is better served by hatnotes ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep As per WP:INTDABLINK, disambiguation pages are not supposed to be linked to from other articles. They not to be classified as orphaned articles as per WP:O#Criteria. Using hatnotes in this case does not really make sense. Where would a hatnote be placed? This would only apply if there was already a non-disambiguation page titled Elementary School Musical. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it is that it should use hatnotes instead of this page. The hatnotes would be on the articles. There is already an hatnote on Elementary School Musical (The Simpsons). ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would completely defeat the purpose of having disambiguation pages. According to WP:TWODABS, "if an ambiguous term is considered to have no primary topic, then that term should lead to a disambiguation page". There is no primary topic, so a disambiguation page is needed. In other words, if there was no disambiguation page, how would anyone be able to find either article? No ordinary user is going to know that they have to type "(The Simpsons)" or "(South Park") after the article name. So what if they just searched for "Elementary School Musical"? That wouldn't take them anywhere, and you would simply get a red link. That is why we have disambiguation pages. Maybe you should take some time and read over WP:D. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it is that it should use hatnotes instead of this page. The hatnotes would be on the articles. There is already an hatnote on Elementary School Musical (The Simpsons). ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dream Out Loud. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Deletion is appropriate only if one of the two articles is to be considered as the primary topic. If neither is the primary topic, a disambiguation page is appropriate at the undisambiguated title. older ≠ wiser 01:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither article is the primary topic, which is why there's no reason for deletion. Both articles are about TV show episodes, so they should both be on the disambiguation page. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, perfectly legitimate use of a disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. --Kinu t/c 20:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (E.g.) The Simpsons one can be used for Elementary School Musical. If they don't want that link, the South Park one is at the top of the page, and vice versa. Kei_Jo (Talk to me baby! :þ) 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hatnotes are useful when a term has an obvious primary topic (i.e., Cheese), which does not exist in this case. Indeed, one could theoretically argue the position opposite yours, stating that this should redirect to the South Park episode because it aired first. --Kinu t/c 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would the Simpsons article be used over the South Park article? Or vice versa? Neither article is a primary topic, so you can't just pick one of the two and add a hatnote for the other article. People need to know the guidelines before making comments like this. This whole AfD could have been avoided if anyone actually paid attention to WP:D. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hatnotes are useful when a term has an obvious primary topic (i.e., Cheese), which does not exist in this case. Indeed, one could theoretically argue the position opposite yours, stating that this should redirect to the South Park episode because it aired first. --Kinu t/c 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:TWODABS. This page falls exactly into those guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A pretty straight forward keep. If there is "no primary topic, then that term should lead to a disambiguation page." --Bejnar (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NetQuake[edit]
- NetQuake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
is it notable? i think it isn't Melaen (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources that discuss this "cyber attack" in depth. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero google hits for "NetQuake Attack". The description given is so vague as to be of almost any attack at all. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Comparison of user page to article strongly suggests this is just something a kid did one day and wanted to brag about it. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drugdiablo[edit]
- Drugdiablo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BAND completely. JaGatalk 18:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Also nominating non-notable song by same artist:[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 and A9 Unclear why speedy was declined, there is no credible assertion of notability in this article. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a tossup. The claim to radio play was enough for me, based on the User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes essay. --JaGatalk 18:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It reads to me as if he records tunes from the radio rather than his tunes are played there. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Does not meet WP:BAND and I've found no sources that are WP:RS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I added the SD tag and am as surprised as others that we are here at an AfD, fails WP:BAND.Paste Let’s have a chat. 12:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Article improved during AfD, consensus favors keep, only delete comment was before article improvement. (non-admin closure) Monty845 22:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This Loud Morning[edit]
- This Loud Morning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references, no cover, only "confirmed tracks". EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 17:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Upcoming, unreferenced album fails WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Aspects (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Article now has references, cover, and more info. Laced Sarcasm (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to David Cook (singer). Will just need to be recreated later. ℥nding·start 05:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Article is now referenced, album has confirmed date of release, is by a notable singer, and has significant independent coverage in reliable sources, therefore satisfies WP:NALBUM. Hzh (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Hzh. CloversMallRat (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's now a confirmed album. With all due respect, BrianGriffin-FG (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gil Lavi[edit]
- Gil Lavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CREATIVE. The only real claims to notability are that he was on a Forbes list of the 300 most influential Israelis under 40 (ranked 271, I think) and some exhibitions. I can't find any sources to support notability. The sources in the article are a single interview, a Word document supporting the Forbes claim and a blog with some of his photos. Pburka (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conor McGregor[edit]
- Conor McGregor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) or WP:BIO Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No bouts for a major MMA organization and no reliable sources. Subject also fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of significant coerage in reliable sources. Huon (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per G3 and G4. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I Love Money 5[edit]
- I Love Money 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article for season 5 of this series has already been deleted. Given that the finale for I Love Money (season 4) was in December 2010, the dates given in this article can be safely regarded as misleading. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 16:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete This TV show ceased production after four seasons. There was never a fifth season; this is a hoax. The source in the lead is a press release announcing the premiere of the first season of the show back in 2008. This can be speedily deleted, either as a blatant hoax or as a re-creation of an article previously deleted after a deletion discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Triple Crown Championship[edit]
- Triple Crown Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page is full of WP:OR and doesn't establish notability. The references are either primary sources or sources that don't speak about the Triple Crown in particular, and a reliable third party source that lists all the Triple Crowns is non-existent. The topic isn't covered by enough reliable third-party sources and the list has frankly been considered cruft by many users for a long time. Feedback ☎ 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Feedback ☎ 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - deleting this article would be like stating that the term doesn't or was never recognized by promotions to exist to begin with. Instead of nominating for deletion, you could have attempted to source the article yourself or revamp it so that it has better sourcing. In this case, I oppose deletion based on the fact that the term is legitimate and the championship has been acknowledged before by various corporations. I do, however, feel that because WWE has not used the term or "title" ever since probably the times when Shawn Michaels first won it, its not relevant or accurate to insist its existence on the behalf of WWE after a known date (esp after the brand extension). TNA has constantly used the term and praises the champions like A.J. Styles till this day as one of those men who are Triple Crown Champions. In terms of other promotions, I have no idea. If its a must to remove all information I would favor merging this article with Championship (professional wrestling). --Truco 503 23:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a term that is used by several promotions, and secondary sources for use of the term are easy to find. Since wrestling promotions control their own championship history (unlike other sports, wrestling promotions have been known to add or remove title reigns), sourcing with mainly primary sources is a good idea. All the problems mentioned in this nomination are either irrelevant or easy to fix. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Insanely Strong Keep
I have put a lot of work into this article and so have others. It would be a waist to delete it. It has lots of links and there are from WWE.com, TNAWRESTLING.com, and ROHWRESTLING.com, so its official, its real, and it should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black60dragon (talk • contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
It is a legitimate accolade that is acheived in at least 4 promotions that recognize it. It has sources to back up what qualifies to acheive it.
If WWE for example says you need A, B, and C to qualify, who are we to say it's not?
It's their titles, it's their rules.
Vjmlhds 05:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- VERY Strong Keep This is well sourced to back up any claims that could constitute original research. Primary sources are sufficient, and this can not be described as "cruft" in any way because of it's inherent notability. Ultra X987 (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Himanshu Pandey[edit]
- Himanshu Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography. BLP Prod contested by the addition of the subject's personal website. Research scholar whose notability has not been established. IMO, the article in its current state barely passes A7 speedy criterion, but all references used only establish what organization the subject works for. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Scholar does point to a handful of research papers by this individual, but only one that was ever cited (once) and he was co-author. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability not yet established --Whiteguru (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not yet achieved by this student and probably never will be if he sticks to his present topic of research. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedia of Islamic World Historical Geography[edit]
- Encyclopedia of Islamic World Historical Geography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Initially prodded as a book whose existence can't be confirmed by a Google search, the article has been edited to assert that it is currently under development, which means the book will have to be published and achieve some notability before the article can be created again. The equivalent article on the Farsi Wikipedia, fa:دانشنامه جغرافیای تاریخی جهان اسلام, has been deleted twice today. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Apparently not even extant, let alone notable. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Work does not exist --Whiteguru (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Velev[edit]
- Martin Velev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to have not played at a high enough level of tennis tournament to qualify under the WP:NSPORTS guideline, nor have enough general coverage to meet the general notability guideline The-Pope (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Can't find any evidence of notability in the article or in a Google News search for GNG-meeting material. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete A 20 year old with some minor national ranking. Can't see any international notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.154.8 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 14:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Giants2008. Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS and, after a google/gnews search, doesn't meet WP:GNG either. Jenks24 (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ba-Shar[edit]
- Ba-Shar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are hundreds of designer dogs out there, and I've found no reliable sources covering this one. The only sites that do cover it also list tons and tons of other possible mixes, and cite no sources of their own. — anndelion ※ 21:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ※ 17:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent sources showing this type is bred regularly and deliberately: it seems to be just a name for a chance cross. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 14:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PNG Stereo[edit]
- PNG Stereo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This and JPEG Stereo seem to be talking about unofficial, specialised applications of the PNG and JPEG formats respectively, not (as they claim to be) separate file formats. The description in each case doesn't even seem a plausible one of a separate file format. See also Talk:Portable Network Graphics#PNG Stereo. In any case, both articles are unsourced, and neither seems particularly notable or to have potentially enough to say about it to warrant an individual article. — Smjg (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:
- Delete Not sourced or verifiable. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems to be an Nvidia format (google Nvidia "PNG Stereo" for examples) and might merit a brief mention in Portable Network Graphics. No need for a separate article IMO. - Pointillist (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just added to Talk:Portable Network Graphics#PNG Stereo based on this find. — Smjg (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 14:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Still not finding RS. It is an interesting concept, virtual 3d with twin ani files, but still can't show it is notable at this time. So far, not much more than an interesting idea. !vote above not changed. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diary of a Bad Man[edit]
- Diary of a Bad Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Notability not established in accordance with WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Created and deleted numerous times via A7 CSD. Recently deleted, salted, and restored with another editor indicating there are references asserting notability. However, only references are links to YT videos. Cind.amuse 10:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Cind.amuse 10:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. Apparently was mentioned on BBC Asian Network radio, but it doesn't appear to have generated breadth of coverage that WP:WEB criterion 1 requires and there is no indication of any lasting notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 10:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Along with not being notable enough (see above), it does not show any third party sources to go along with the videos (at least none cited). @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 14:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is lots of info that can be taken from those sources and 15 million views isn't that bad. There is possibly going to be criticism if it is deleted because of 'racism'. Why don't you keep the article going for another few months, then see what happens? 82.46.152.122 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you saying we should keep for fear of being called racist? Or are you suggesting that this nomination and the associated vote is racist? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No it isn't, but forget about that. The thing is, it is known through the internet but I don't think the press have done an interview with him, but is that what you need? What if in interviews, he talks about the show and the background behind it, I would have thought that would be reliable info? Emirates123 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Perhaps. It depends where the interviews are as per WP:RS. Also, as outlined in WP:WEB, the subject needs to be covered in depth in multiple non-trivial works that are independent of the subject. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only information appears to come from ostensibly primary sources, i.e., the videos themselves and a couple of interviews of dubious credibility with the creator. There does not appear to be any actual coverage from multiple reliable sources of the subject outside of that. Ultimately does not meet WP:GNG and there is no actual sourceable content on which to base an article. "15 million views isn't that bad"... perhaps, but it does not convey encyclopedic notability if a reliable source hasn't written about it or discussed it. --Kinu t/c 20:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self produced work which is not notable. All sources appear to be video themselves and promos for videos. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa Frank[edit]
- Lisa Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is an unsourced BLP, tagged since 2009. It doesn't have any third party references, and the only external link is an official website about the subject. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 05:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's often helpful to check an article's history when considering whether to nominate it for AfD. In this case, the history reveals that the article was the victim of serial vandalism followed by incomplete efforts to fix the vandalism. All of this left it without the sources that were supplied during the first AfD, which closed with a keep result on 22 August 2010. I've now restored the article to its condition at that time, which includes sourcing. I continue to agree with Cindamuse's keep rationale at the first AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She was very visible a few years ago. I'm surprised there are not more sources available. But still there is enough provided to keep the article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep If this was an article about Lisa Frank Incorporated, it would be a strong keep. What about moving the info to a page about the company itself? That could be a strong article. With Arxiloxos's rollback, the references are already there to support it, and really all we'd lose is the note about where she went to school. --Strangerer (Talk) 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On the simplistic but not insignificant argument that the community has already given a "keep" to this topic before, regardless of the state of the article. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: Deleted by Jimfbleak as "Essay, original research, no sources." Procedural close. 28bytes (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Top 10 manga characters[edit]
- Top 10 manga characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
De-PROD. Unreferenced, nothing in searches to indicate this is a notable list from a recognized authority. So, it appears to be WP:OR. Additionally,Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. NortyNort (Holla) 04:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, just looks like the authors opinions put onto a test Wikipedia page. Sumsum2010·T·C 05:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. A textbook example of WP:NOT. Article is nothing but some random person's opinion. 28bytes (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong delete. Author's opinion, no references. Not really a test page, but nowhere near any potential as an article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Greves[edit]
- John Greves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N: Can't find reliable secondary sources which confirm the existence of and/or evidence the notability of this musician, although this suggests that this isn't entirely a hoax. Still, there's no in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources I can find, which makes meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO unlikely unless addtional sources can be found. joe deckertalk to me 04:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stevie Ocean[edit]
- Stevie Ocean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
My concern is that this is an elaborate hoax of some sort.
None of the inline references given support any of the allegations in the article; one is a link to a documentary about brothers lost in Albania, one is a blurb about a DJ named Rob Gallichan that doesn't mention Stevie Ocean, and one is a 404 link at the Jersey Arts Trust. The external links are a bunch of pages that could easily be about a non-notable but real person named Stevie Ocean but equally could have been created from whole cloth to prop up the hoax. The assertions in the article are so full of peacock language that they seem outlandish.
A quick Google search reveals tons of message boards, blogs, etc. mentioning Stevie Ocean but often with no connection to the actual subject of the post. It's like they were trying to spam Google with the name. I'm getting the sense that this is either a non-notable person with the largest and least competent PR department in human history or a hoax perpetrated by a large number of people having a laugh on the world. NellieBly (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There was a documentary entitled Whatever Happened to Stevie Ocean that was made as part of the first season of Channel 4's The Other Side in which film-makers, both professional and amateur, were given a camera to go and make a documentary. Whether that can be regarded as a reliable source is doubtful. The documentary is here, by the way:
- Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure about that? There's nothing on the episode guide and no search results from channel4.com. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The episode guide on Channel 4's site only appears to go back to 2005, whereas the series goes back at least to 1999. Episodes are listed on the BFI site. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, thanks. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as highly dubious article with apparently faked footnotes, judging by a peek at FN1. Includes this tidbit, which gets my bullshit detector whirring: He has released 4 albums (cassette release only), selling 1,600,000 units worldwide. NOTHING is gonna sell that many units without other more lucrative formats being made. Probable hoax. Carrite (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter what the number is, the fact it's being argued about here is an indication that it is not reliably sourced. Almost all the material in this BLP comes from a Youtube video claimed to be an archive of a documentary. That is not a reliable source to base a BLP on. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Semmelweis Society[edit]
- Semmelweis Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Lewis (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that this AfD was prompted by a discussion at Talk:Peter Duesberg regarding the appropriateness of mentioning the "Clean hands" award that this society presented to Duesberg in 2008. Upon further reflection, it became clear that the society itself may not even be notable enough to warrant an article. --Lewis (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems like a front for an AIDS denialist group - no other visibility. It may be notable in that context, and if so then the page should be refactored to describe the group more clearly. Otherwise, I'd agree with deletion. -- Scray (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I haven't been following this closely recently, but I recall that numerous contributors to the article seemed to have conflicts of interest and that the reliable sources were thin. On whatever grounds the Society was originally founded, it seems today to be exactly as Scray describes, and it's not particularly notable even in AIDS denialist circles. I am of course open to other interpretations if someone has reliable sources, but for now I wouldn't oppose deletion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability outside fringe interests not established. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I thought the Time article might be enough for notability, but it pretty much stands alone. The only things I find at Google News are press releases and POV opinion pieces. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MelanieN. My searches were just as unsuccessful; I don't believe the sourcing exists to support an article on this subject. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funnt File[edit]
- Funnt File (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article tagged as written like an advertisement for quite some time. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't really like to delete radio show articles, but I don't really see any assertion of notability here - none of the participants seem to have their own article and the stations it was syndicated on haven't been listed, so we can't even tell if they were notable. None of those stations link to this article, and we're not even told when it was broadcast except for "the late 1990s". This could conceivably be re-written to make it noteworthy if some good sources could be found, but as the nom states, at preset it has an advertising tone which suggests the article was written by somebody involved. Bob talk 17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Krisztián Gabala[edit]
- Krisztián Gabala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources to verify that the subject of this unsourced BLP played in a fully professional football league. J04n(talk page) 01:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 05:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he does exist, but there's no evidence he meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 05:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence to prove that he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything substantial to prove that he played for Szombathelyi Haladás in Nemzeti Bajnokság I. A website I use for Hungarian players, HLSZ, has nothing detailing him. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 03:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage that I (or anyone above) can find, so doesn't meet WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL either. Jenks24 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Identity (Samuel-Lea album)[edit]
- Identity (Samuel-Lea album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no notability - support speedy Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Have tagged the article with A9, see Samuel-Lea. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Powerdecal[edit]
- Powerdecal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is "a newly coined term, word or phrase, that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language" @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 01:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No books, no scholar, no news, no reliable sources + no notability = no article. Delete. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete-per nom.--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obscure product, no assertion of notability, not covered in any reliable sources as far as I could tell. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Faith47[edit]
- Faith47 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ARTIST. Not a notable subject. Taroaldo (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the editor who challenged the CSD, I will abstain from directly supporting an outcome here, but I would like to point out this link [10] in the Bibliography seems to be some real coverage of the artist, though there may be dispute as to the reliability of the source for use in meeting the notability standards. Monty845 23:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that "SensesLost" is a glorified blog, the coverage in question does nothing in regard to meeting the criteria set out in WP:ARTIST. Taroaldo (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My intent in offering the blog link was not to claim it is enough to satisfy the notability guidelines alone, I merely want to raise the issue that this person MAY actually be notable. Also, I may be more willing then most to accept a blog as a reliable source, but I think the blog appears to be enough of a reliable source that it could serve as part of the basis for notability if additional sources are found. The blog appears to me to be taking a pretty serious, journalistic approach, to its subject area, and to be more then just a personal blog. Additional information about editorial policy, accountability and a larger breadth of coverage would all make it a better notability source, but again, I think there is enough indicia of reliability that the blog in question should contribute towards meeting the notability guideline. I would also note that as the article refers to the artist only by their alias, the extremely strict reliability criteria for BLP cases seems less applicable here, though they are still relevant. Monty845 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone in and provided two (plus a 3rd but it is just a passing reference) additional sources that support notability and that are a lot better then the blog, I have also cut some of the un-sourced fluff out of the article. While it could probably cut more, and maybe even stubified, I think it now has a reasonable change of meeting the general notability guidelines. There are a number of foreign language sources that appear in the google news search suggested by the AFD template that I suspect would further bolster the claim to notability, but I do not speak the language. Monty845 01:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My intent in offering the blog link was not to claim it is enough to satisfy the notability guidelines alone, I merely want to raise the issue that this person MAY actually be notable. Also, I may be more willing then most to accept a blog as a reliable source, but I think the blog appears to be enough of a reliable source that it could serve as part of the basis for notability if additional sources are found. The blog appears to me to be taking a pretty serious, journalistic approach, to its subject area, and to be more then just a personal blog. Additional information about editorial policy, accountability and a larger breadth of coverage would all make it a better notability source, but again, I think there is enough indicia of reliability that the blog in question should contribute towards meeting the notability guideline. I would also note that as the article refers to the artist only by their alias, the extremely strict reliability criteria for BLP cases seems less applicable here, though they are still relevant. Monty845 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that "SensesLost" is a glorified blog, the coverage in question does nothing in regard to meeting the criteria set out in WP:ARTIST. Taroaldo (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The coverage appears unbiased. Coverage from Canada, Africa, UK. Article needs to be written better.... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Coverage exists in multiple reliable sources: [11], [12] are in Spanish covering her contribution to an art exhibition; this article covers a mural which she was commissioned to do; article covers he contribution to another art exhibition. This is in addition to the iAfrica, and Canada.com articles already referenced in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No consensus that it is not notable, so would have been kept on this basis, but still contains copyvio (and spam) text from company websites. So, deleted without prejudice to recreation as a non-copyvio, non-spammy article. Sandstein 09:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quallion[edit]
- Quallion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Written like an advertisement, contents copied from website, primary author seems to have conflict of interest. Either a complete rewrite or deletion is necessary. Hello71 (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does require re-writing, but there are a lot of citations from real publications. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability seems almost non-existent. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another world leader. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite - Although poorly written, WP:ORGIN, states that Notable means "attracting notice." and it does not necessarily need to have "fame". Also, it has to have multiple reliable sources. Subject has attracted notice of Forbes Magazine [13], Financial Times [14], LA Times [15] as well as government agencies [16]. It satisfies WP:NCORP and I myself found plenty of articles ([17] [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] , [23]) that could improve the quality of this entry once notability has been established. HOWEVER, it is important do DELETE and cleanup all mentions of products that the company makes as it reads like an advertisement. On a semi-related note, I would suggest for us to do a cleanup of notability on some businesses in the "category:Companies of Brazil" as there are many shady unsourced companies in there in which the main sources are press releases and whose notability is questionable. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Keep it, burn it, I don't care — one could make a case either way... But for the love of Random Holy Deity, please despam this thing!!! Carrite (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The company is not notable. One article on it in Forbes does not make it notable, and the other sources are trade journals. Perchloric (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd ask you to re-consider this point. This article seems to completely satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH as in "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. ". Although the depth of coverage is substantial already, this article STILL has multiple sources like the ones I mentioned above. Further, the same notability criteria says: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." even if only Forbes was the single source, as long as the coverage is not trivial, it would be enough to establish notability BUT in this case MULTIPLE articles re-inforce the notability of this company. Take a look at my rationale above. --Loukinho (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Trouble is, some of those articles, if you look closely, are just press releases from the company itself (look for "Source:Quallion" at the end), and the others tend to mention the company in passing as an example to illustrate a point about stimulus funding. From the sources you have accumulated, I can't see anything that makes Quallion itself notable. The coverage seems "Trivial or incidental", which is exactly what WP:CORP gives as a sign of being non-notable. If you had to summarize in 1 sentence, what would you say Quallion is notable for? Perchloric (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Della Rose (group)[edit]
- Della Rose (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only sources are myspace, youtube and other unreliable sources. Outdated info abounds. No notability besides touring with a couple acts. Spammy, promotional, poorly written. Fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. No sources found other than the ones Hammer brought up, and the fact that the article discusses future events in past tense ("sometime in 2009") doesn't help matters. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable group. No reliable sources. MoondogCoronation (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability under WP:MUS. No prejudice towards recreation once there is sufficient evidence. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 19:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of reliable information about this band. KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Miss World 2007#Contestants as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Consider this a keep close but please do not undo the redirect without sourcing the article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jana Stojanovska[edit]
- Jana Stojanovska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An unreferenced biography for a person that doesn't really appear that notable D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep If the claim is correct that she participated in the Miss World 2007, that would seem to satisfy the notability requirement, but sources aren't forthcoming even in the Miss World 2007 article, which itself is undersourced. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are no sources specifically on Stojanovska, I'd say redirect to Miss World 2007#Contestants. Mbinebri talk ← 16:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Miss World, miss Universe etc ..usually the delegates gets instant notability. For example participation in Miss World 2007 satisfies the notability requirements.--81.237.218.107 (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As I understand the requirements, this is enough notability to be included. If you look through the contestants listed on Miss World 2007 you will see many other articles in similar condition. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to And One discography. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anguish (album)[edit]
- Anguish (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no idividual notability shown for this album. lacks charting, awards, covers, coverage. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unless this article is unreferenced it should be kept. Unlike its policy on songs, which requires notability, wikipedi'a policy on albums allows most albums to have an article. Generally a single will have its own page, but other tracks will not. This is why the eventual complete coverage of albums is prudent. When you search for one of the lesser tracks on the album, you will be redirected to the album page. It is important that wikipedia improves its coverage of such articles related to albums, as wikipedia is often the fist resource that people turn to when trying to identify music. Wikipedia already has an excellent reputation for being a great page to find informationa bout music and it would not e wise to spoil such a reputation. Therefore i think this arguament should change from being one about the significance of the album (as this is insignificant in itself) and rather that we should focus on whether the article is of the necessary quality and has sufficent referencing to justify keeping it. talk, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Redirect to the band. Not notable. talk's argument is invalid. Pburka (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the band. All I can find are references to the album's existence, no reviews or other coverage that could demonstrate independent notability. 28bytes (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." WP:NALBUMS Wickedjacob (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Flop_(disambiguation). Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Flop![edit]
- Flop! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no idividual notability shown for this album. lacks charting, awards, covers, coverage. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unless this article is unreferenced it should be kept. Unlike its policy on songs, which requires notability, wikipedi'a policy on albums allows most albums to have an article. Generally a single will have its own page, but other tracks will not. This is why the eventual complete coverage of albums is prudent. When you search for one of the lesser tracks on the album, you will be redirected to the album page. It is important that wikipedia improves its coverage of such articles related to albums, as wikipedia is often the fist resource that people turn to when trying to identify music. Wikipedia already has an excellent reputation for being a great page to find informationa bout music and it would not e wise to spoil such a reputation. Therefore i think this arguament should change from being one about the significance of the album (as this is insignificant in itself) and rather that we should focus on whether the article is of the necessary quality and has sufficent referencing to justify keeping it. talk, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Redirect to the band. Not notable. talk's argument is invalid. Pburka (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment shouldn't this be redirected to the disambiguation page, if it is turned into a redirect? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the band. I can find evidence the album exists[24], but no reliable source coverage. 28bytes (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Flop_(disambiguation) which seems to already have a link that redirects to the band in question. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Louis Armstrong award[edit]
- Louis Armstrong award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no idividual notability shown for this high school award. lacks coverage. the current sourcing are: two Louis Armstrong biographies that are not about the award and don't mention it; a store; a High School website. None are independent reliable sources about the award. nothing satisfying WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a borderline hoax. The only solid Ghit I could find about a Louis Armstrong award is a Facebook page. In addition, all the article's references are about Mr. Armstrong himself, not the supposed award. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. GBooks turns up a book entitled Teaching Band & Orchestra: Methods and Materials that calls this a "nationally recognized" award that high schools can get from Instrumentalist Magazine.[25] Based on the store website listed in the external links, it's an award designed to honor a top student in each high school's music program each year. So: not a hoax, but maybe a bit of a promotion for the Instrumentalist store, and I don't find much else directly indicating its notability. However, the article does have a list of notable musicians who supposedly received this award, and if reliable sources can be turned up to confirm this, and/or to confirm that schools and musical communities really do consider this a significant honor, I might become inclined to support its retention.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- possible Keep on the assumption that the awards to the recipients can be verified. If so, I do not see how this can possibly be a hoax. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Certainly not a hoax. There are dozens of Reliable Source citations along the lines of "so and so won the Louis Armstrong award" [26]. None of them amounts to substantial coverage ABOUT the award, but it certainly does appear to attract some press when it is awarded. I'm not sure how that kind of coverage can be cited in the article, but it exists. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to And One. Sandstein 09:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Virgin Superstar[edit]
- Virgin Superstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no idividual notability shown for this album. lacks charting, awards, covers, coverage. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unless this article is unreferenced it should be kept. Unlike its policy on songs, which requires notability, wikipedi'a policy on albums allows most albums to have an article. Generally a single will have its own page, but other tracks will not. This is why the eventual complete coverage of albums is prudent. When you search for one of the lesser tracks on the album, you will be redirected to the album page. It is important that wikipedia improves its coverage of such articles related to albums, as wikipedia is often the fist resource that people turn to when trying to identify music. Wikipedia already has an excellent reputation for being a great page to find informationa bout music and it would not e wise to spoil such a reputation. Therefore i think this arguament should change from being one about the significance of the album (as this is insignificant in itself) and rather that we should focus on whether the article is of the necessary quality and has sufficent referencing to justify keeping it. talk, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I thought an album needed to at least have a single chart or pass notability to be included. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After several days and lack of demonstration that this is notable as a standalone, Redirect to the band. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the band. Editor talk is mistaken that albums are excluded from Wikipedia's notability policies. All articles are subject to notability requirements per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the band per WP:GNG] and WP:NALBUMS Wickedjacob (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Software as a service. Sandstein 09:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SaaS data escrow[edit]
- SaaS data escrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An esoteric topic pertaining mostly to one solution provider Eilon.reshef (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Software as a service. This topic does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article, but that doesn't mean the information shouldn't be preserved. We don't delete information solely because it's "esoteric." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Software as a service or perhaps merge it and Source_code_escrow into "data escrow" as they seem to be both examples of that larger concept. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International Union of Young Farmers[edit]
- International Union of Young Farmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks like it's a non-notable organisation (in the sense used in Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). I have checked different versions of name of this organisation: English ("International Union of Young Farmers"), Lithuanian ("Tarptautinė jaunųjų ūkininkų sąjunga"), Russian ("Международный союз молодых фермеров"), German ("Internationale Vereinigung von Jungen Landwirten")... The results do not seem to be much different from the last time several months ago ([27]; the article has been tagged with "notability" tag for about a year - since [28]). What reliable sources have been found? Well, there is [29] - a report by Lithuanian Financial crime investigation service (Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba), which includes one statement, saying that some men (considered to be victims) were asked to become members of this organisation. Not much... There are some newspaper accounts that essentially repeat the same report (for example, [30] - "Lietuvos rytas", "Už melagingus pažadus įdarbinti užsienyje laukia teismas", 2006-11-21). What else? There is an article "Лохотронщик в тюрьме: «Помогите миссионеру Европы...»" (2003-07-16) in newspaper "ЧАС" ([31]) which describes the similar story in Latvia (and ridicules the claims about relationships with international organisations). That's about all (not counting numerous mirrors of different Wikipedias, various "advertisements", directories and other sources that cannot prove notability). So, we have one source with significant coverage. Normally we prefer to have at least two... But even if we decide to keep the article, the current content is still unacceptable (it is essencially an advertisement) and would have to be replaced by description of criminal investigations etc. Now, the "precedents". The German article has been deleted (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/9. Dezember 2009#Internationale Vereinigung von Jungen Landwirten (gelöscht) - [32]), so was the Lithuanian one ([33]). The Russian article has been kept (ru:Википедия:К удалению/22 ноября 2009#Международный союз молодых фермеров) after the author claimed that this organisation had something to do with "Doctrine of Agricultural Security of Russian Federation" (although I haven't seen any independent sources saying anything about that)... So, what should happen here? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article seems to fail both notability and verifiabilty criteria. The article (since its earliest version) makes assertions that are completely unsourced - any sources offered do not make any reference to the body. Moreover, there seem to be no sources online that would verify these claims. For example, the article asserts that this NGO was founded as a result of "the UN General Assembly call in the year 2000 (resolution 54/120 year 1999, articles 3, 14, 15)"; however the resolution in question, 54/120, ((PDF here) is a general call for earlier youth-related resolutions to be implemented (or continued) and does not in any way make mention of this organization; any assertion that this organization was a direct result (or even an indirect result) of a UN resolution would of course have to be backed by references. I cannot find any mention of this being the case, regardless of whether the mention is from a reliable source or not, apart from the website of the IUYF and Wikipedia mirrors. (In an aside, because of the longevity of this article, there are a lot of websites that mirror the text of the Wiki article.) The article also claims "IUYF members are associations and persons from Ireland, Great Britain, Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldavia, Russia and USA" without mentioning which associations; however, approaching that issue from the other direction, a Google search doesn't seem to produce any farming organizations or associations claiming to be members. Granted my search was only limited to an English language search, but as the article claims membership in Ireland, the US and the UK, it would hardly be unreasonable to expect that at least one of the farming organizations would mention on their websites that they were associated with the IUYF. More problems are encountered with the assertion that the IUYF, according to the article, has "Consultative Status with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. That is an assertion that would have to be backed by independent sources - this is an extraordinary assertion not to have any sourcing, whether provided or found. As pointed out by the nominator, the only mentions that he could find that could be considered as reliable sourcing were in passing and negative in tone and looking at a translation of one of the articles, I agree; an article based on these alone would not be tenable. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Archives & Architecture[edit]
- Archives & Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This architectural history firm does not appear to meet the notability guideline for companies. There are multiple examples of their studies online since their work tends to be for public projects, but I am not seeing any coverage from secondary sources unrelated to the topic. Major COI/advert issues here as well. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep if it has engaged in as many projects as listed, it might well be notable, and there is therefore no reason for deleting it. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absent significant, non-local coverage, Archives & Architecture fails WP:CORP. The only significant mentions in a Google News Archive search derive from San Jose Mercury News, which is a local publication. Goodvac (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Give some credit to the San Jose Mercury-News; it is a regional publication with a daily circulation of half a million. It is certainly an adequate source for establishing notability. However, neither of these SJMN hits amounts to significant coverage; they are more like passing mentions. No other coverage is found so the company fails WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hiroto Torihata[edit]
- Hiroto Torihata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Attempted to find sources using the Japanese spelling of his name, 鳥畑洋人, and the English translation with any luck. His page from the Japanese Wikipedia is also unsourced. J04n(talk page) 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --J04n(talk page) 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - added Rotten Tomato link and IMDb profile, not the ideal references but it's something. Only can verify some of the minor roles, the other more impressive claims (e.g. Crouching Tiger, West Wing) may need to be removed if we cannot source them Jebus989✰ 20:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletebarring additional sourcing. IMDB isn't a reliable source, The RT link verifies insufficient claims to demonstrate notability even if we considered it reliable, and a walk through WP:RSN would likely show otherwise. Was unable to find additional sourcing myself, although additional sourcing is always welcome, I don't speak Japanese and it's certainly possible that I've missed something of significance. --joe deckertalk to me 21:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC) (Changed to Neutral per Spin City below) --joe deckertalk to me 00:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The IMDb issue has been rehashed hundreds of times (e.g. 1, 2, 3) - the WP:Citing_IMDb proposal effectively failed because of the differing opinions - and to solidly state that it is unreliable in all circumstances is objectionable (though it may have been decided by factions). The Filmographies are generally considered reliable (see linked discussions), and (to me, at least) seem somewhat preferable to citing offline cast lists from DVD inserts (for example), or from directly film credits (where IMDb supposedly source their cast lists) Jebus989✰ 23:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the specific question of verifiability, I don't see anything wrong with the insert, and in fact, if the web site for the one film that Rotton Tomatoes and our article agree the actor worked (neither Safari nor Chrome can render the text it's putting out correctly for me), I'd be happy enough for that with respect to the question of verifying the information. I am less convinced that there is inherent notability in a voice actor on a single film, however, and additional secondary sources would be required to pass GNG--the encyclopedia entries certainly aren't in-depth coverage. I am retrying searching on the Japanese name, though, perhaps there's still something out there. --joe deckertalk to me 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, in terms of verifying things, [34]/[35] seems reliable-but-primary verifying a dubbing role in the Japanese adaptation of Spin City. That's at least some, I'd argue cleanly, verifiable fact. Notability is always fussy, I'll cut to neutral based on this alone, and if I see any thing more reliable I'll go keep. --joe deckertalk to me 00:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC) (PS: Was unable to verify the West Wing claim via checking all the listed dub artists on primary characters [36]). --joe deckertalk to me 00:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be his agency's profile page for him? I've noticed these are used in most other Japanese Voice actors articles. There's even images (unfortunately non-free). But there is a long list of parts, the machine translation is poor, but I can pick out CSI:New York, Dead Heat and How to Lose a Guy in ten days. I also assume the 'Drama' and 'Stage' headings match those in the article Jebus989✰ 11:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the article history there also appears to be offline coverage in "Nihon Onsei-seisakusha Meikan 2007" (ISBN 978-4-09-526302-1) and see this discussion Jebus989✰ 11:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Final note: added several more Japanese references. While the reliability of one or two may be up for limited debate, this is now (relatively) one of the better referenced members of Category:Japanese_voice_actors Jebus989✰ 11:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, in terms of verifying things, [34]/[35] seems reliable-but-primary verifying a dubbing role in the Japanese adaptation of Spin City. That's at least some, I'd argue cleanly, verifiable fact. Notability is always fussy, I'll cut to neutral based on this alone, and if I see any thing more reliable I'll go keep. --joe deckertalk to me 00:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC) (PS: Was unable to verify the West Wing claim via checking all the listed dub artists on primary characters [36]). --joe deckertalk to me 00:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the specific question of verifiability, I don't see anything wrong with the insert, and in fact, if the web site for the one film that Rotton Tomatoes and our article agree the actor worked (neither Safari nor Chrome can render the text it's putting out correctly for me), I'd be happy enough for that with respect to the question of verifying the information. I am less convinced that there is inherent notability in a voice actor on a single film, however, and additional secondary sources would be required to pass GNG--the encyclopedia entries certainly aren't in-depth coverage. I am retrying searching on the Japanese name, though, perhaps there's still something out there. --joe deckertalk to me 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:NACTOR This person has played a notable role in various notable productions. This includes one of the two main characters in Karas (anime) Dream Focus 04:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NACTOR as the subject clearly did not have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (emphases mine) —Farix (t | c) 19:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the significant roles subjective in multiple notable films like Armageddon, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days and Dead Heat as well as working on massively popular television shows like Friends, CSI:NY (all sourced) in addition to the animé mentioned above?
- Compare with some other pages in this category: Tsugumi Higasayama, Saori Gotō, Yuriko Hishimi, Yōko Honda (unreferenced, less notable roles) — I have no vested interest in this article but it seems if were to be deleted, hundreds of the pages in this category would then need to be nominated. Can we honestly say the encyclopaedia would be improved by removing them? Jebus989✰ 20:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dubbing is the same as voice acting. It is as notable as regular acting. The emotions the actors have to show in their voices, and the timing, is the same as regular acting, you just don't see their faces. Dream Focus 09:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Switch Audio Converter[edit]
- Switch Audio Converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not especially notable software product; better if incorporated in manufacturer's article. Ckatzchatspy 22:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this "award winning" article. Awards are a joke, only links are downloads. Fails general notability, here to advertise the product. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The "awards" are just product reviews. CNet praised the product for uninstalling cleanly. Pburka (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marilyn Maki[edit]
- Marilyn Maki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A (rather cursory) search of Google books, news and scholar fails to find any sources discussing the subject of this article. Absent sources, we shouldn't have an article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Pburka (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Broadwave[edit]
- Broadwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not establish notability of the product; there are several other examples of promotional issues relating to this company's products. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WavePad (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WavePad (2nd nomination)) Ckatzchatspy 22:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rehan Khan[edit]
- Rehan Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced biography of a living person. Notability per WP:NMG unclear. bender235 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a very notable artist. Please refer to the updated page of Rehan Khan with 6-7 references and far more information about him. werldwayd (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Winner of a major talent competition. Pburka (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clear notability in his nation. An American artist at this level wouldn't be questioned. Wickedjacob (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Hatch[edit]
- Colin Hatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Aside from the smattering of news coverage, it is unclear that this case will be notable in the long run. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete don't see how he meets WP:PERP. we don't create articles for all murderers and even if they were murdered in jail. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. In this case, we have to consider WP:VICTIM as well as WP:PERP. At the moment, it's too early to tell if the murder of Hatch in prison will have long-term implications. However, if anything, it may turn out that the alleged perpertrator of Hatch's murder, Damien Fowkes, is more notable in the long run, particularly in view of the earlier attack on Ian Huntley. --RFBailey (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - definitly enough material to justify keeping this article for now. His death was covered by major media and so on. The guessing game is a difficult one, predicting either sustained notaiblity over a long time is just that a guessing game. In situations like that I always take the side of hope and says keep so that time can tell us who is right.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think WP:NOTTEMP applies, but I'm not sure which way it applies. If the subject was notable in the past, then he was notable and the article stands. But if the notability is questionable, and there's little chance of future coverage, then we should delete. Might not be a bad idea to keep now and revisit this one after some time has passed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with RFBailey. I created the article due to interest and media coverage and having done some research thought he may be notable enough due to the number of offences, the controversy caused, the fact that his conviction caused the government to look into other sex offenders. However, if Damien Fowkes is convicted, it would be nice to merge this page with that one, if possible. I realise that the implications of his conviction have not yet been discussed, but I could easily write more on that if need be. - Mezuu64 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe Hatch may have received the whole life tariff. If he did, that is incredibly rare in the UK, especially for only a single murder. As such, it could be compared to death penalties (banned in most of Europe), which in some cases are viewed as giving increased notability. In addition, major questions were asked and a review ordered as to how the two prisoners came into contact at all. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as he fails to meet any of the criteria for WP:PERP. - Dravecky (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:PERP.4meter4 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and/or migrate it to WikiNews. Neither his crime, nor his murder seems to be notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Isn't it about time for this discussion to close? The nomination is now 10 days old and plenty of people have made comments.4meter4 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 00:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for a few months, noting that there are reliable sources that discuss the person somewhat, and that this is not a BLP. It takes time for WP:NOTNEWS to be proven as opposed to predicted. New sources may arise soon. Also, allow time to look for a suitable merge target. If nothing changes, this page should be deleted in a few months, as failing BIO1E and NOTNEWS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what we normally do that fits is to incubate by moving to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Colin Hatch.
If nothing much happens in a reasonable time, it should be deleted per this AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what we normally do that fits is to incubate by moving to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Colin Hatch.
- Keep Passes WP:BIO. Has passed WP:NOTNEWS already with alot of coverage by media.--81.237.218.107 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — 81.237.218.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Involvement in two events which are of limited and temporary significance. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:PERP and WP:VICTIM. Maybe an article about the guy who's said to have killed him & attacked Ian Huntley instead, I'm not sure. Bob House 884 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Run-of-the-mill WP:PERP and WP:ONEEVENT fail. Not everyone that gets a bit of press for committing a crime gets a Wikipedia article, we're not a police blotter. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for a few months can not see the harm in that. It is currently a predicted or assumed non-notability as to in fact proven non-notability. It takes time for WP:NOTNEWS to be proven as opposed to predicted.--HelloKitta (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't normally hang onto things that don't meet notability guidelines at the moment but which may become notable in future, but I understand that you and SmokeyJoe may be concerned about losing the content altogether. Perhaps deletion and userfying to someone relevant would address your concerns? Bob House 884 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there in lays the issues here, me and Smokeyjoe and a number of other users find it notable now. For now it is an assumed non-notability per choice as in comparison to in fact proven non-notability without a doubt. That is why we suggest waiting a few months until we can prove the non-notability instead of predicting or assuming non-notability. The AFD so far is neither a Keep or a Delete majority either so a few months wait will not in any way harm. As then a more certain Keep or delete decision can be made which will certainly be a strong decision to one or the other side. In the case of this article it was first Deleted but re-evaluated and put on again for a few extra days as it was found that there first of all were no consensus for either side also the AFD was not up long enough to provide a certain "result". That to me also proves that there are users of a Keep opinion or atleast a "Wait a few months" opinion that perhaps never got the chance to raise their opinions. So my conclusion to all of this is that a No consensus or Weak keep in favour of waiting a few months and then see what has happen (either for keep or delete definitly) is in the best interest of the Wikipedia and this article. Hope the answer satisfies you.--HelloKitta (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – What is being lost it that an AfD is not a traditional !vote. Admins do not look at the number of Keeps vs. the number of Deletes and decide based on the score. What is taken into account is the support provided behind the Keep/Delete !vote. For instance, if I look at one of the comments supporting a Keep !vote it states, "reliable sources that discuss the person somewhat, and that this is not a BLP." This is not a valid reason to keep an article. (A "somewhat" supported article is probably questionable support and any BLP can be deleted if the sources are not adequate.) If something is not notable now, then it should be removed until notability can be established. There is not a provision in Wikipedia to hold on to something that is not notable. If fact there is plenty against doing so. BTW - the Afd was not reinstated because there was no consensus – the consensus was obvious and based on that consensus it was deleted, the AfD was reinstated because it was felt the duration of the AfD was too short. ttonyb (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Bob, I am not so much worried about loosing content. It can be userfied, undeleted on discovery of new sources, or the existing content can be re-created from the existing sources that aren't going anywhere. I'm more concerned about the lack of encouragement to the new user, Mezuu64. I think you second sentence "Maybe an article about the guy..." is reason to give it more time, and is what we would have done years ago, and I think that we are going to much to meta:Immediatism.
That said, no HelloKitta, I do not find it has demonstrated wikipedia-notability. It fails multiple guidelines (all based on the same line). However, I believed that the guidelines should be read as indicative, not as mandating an immediate decision.
I suspect that this content (if kept) will be soon merged to a different title, and if the page is kept live fora period, it better encourages editors, new and old, to be alert to new sources, and to allow for a sensible merge. One reason I think that better sources are coming is that there is a great deal of coverage of real crime in printed books. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the basis of NOTNEWS. Scumbag perp notable only for getting offed in prison for being a scumbag perp. Nothing to see here... Carrite (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a scumbag is no reason for not including this article on Wikipedia.. In that case in many parts of the world Barack Obama is considered one, for simply being the President of the US.. should we not include him because of that? No reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NOTNEWS. Yes, a lot of press coverage, but that is not enough: the GNG explicitly says, in its fifth bullet point, that significant coverage is "not a guarantee... that a subject is suitable for inclusion... For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not" - as this does. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep murder with extraordinary features and corresponding coverage. I notice we do not have an article for the murder of Sean Williams--presumably that was considered too "ordinary" -- this one isn't. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep extraordinary features as DGG states. Passing WP:PERP. Its not an ordinary case.--VictoriousGastain (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SMPK 4 Jakarta[edit]
- SMPK 4 Jakarta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason: General lack of notability (high schools may generally be considered notable, but middle school level vocational schools?) and lack of verifiability. Needless to say, if it is kept it needs some major formatting. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you certain this is a middle school as an American would understand it? "Middle high school" could very well mean "non-academic high school". The phrase "middle school" is sometimes assumed to be used and understood worldwide but it's really only common in the US and a few other places, such as a couple of Canadian provinces. --NellieBly (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A SMP is the Indonesian equivalent of a junior high school in the US (grades 7 - 9). Senior high schools (SMA) are grades 10 - 12. The K in SMPK stands for kejuruan (job or vocation), just like in the high school equivalent, SMK. Hence, it would be the same as a middle school-level vocational school. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Sorry, I saw this is already closed, but I had to clarify: "SMPK" is Christian SMP (SMP Kristen); there are no vocational school in junior high school level. For vocational school, the correct term are SMK (Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan) and always senior high school level (a.k.a. SMA). So there's SMA (normal), SMK (vocational), and SMAK (Christian). Vocational school is an option after the mandatory 9 years of (general) schooling. Bennylin (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-
- (edit conflict) Comment/Question Article quality is never a factor in determining whether it should be kept. Notability only is what is important. How does wikipedia treat middle schools? I hope it's not a case of American middle schools being considered notable, but not Indonesian middle schools. What's the policy/convention here? thanks --Merbabu (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The quality is not what it is being nominated for. In my nomination I state that "... if (the article) is kept, it needs major formatting." The nomination is for a general lack of notability and verifiability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: I tried searching for Wikipedia:middle school and found many, many deletion discussions. The ones I checked were all pro-deletion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK then, delete. What about the rest of them? --Merbabu (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess per Wikipedia precedent; keep the senior high schools (SMA & SMK) and delete the elementary and junior high schools (SD and SMP) except for those that are notable and the information about them is verifiable. However, I must admit that I think having an article for every senior high school in Indonesia is rather silly, since Jakarta alone has at least a hundred public high schools (SMA Negeri). Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK then, delete. What about the rest of them? --Merbabu (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete now that the editor has confirmed that this is a junior high or middle school and not an actual high school. Notability is not asserted, nor does a search reveal any special notability. Consensus is that schools below the high-school level are not generally notable. --NellieBly (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and record this as a deletion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_schools_in_Indonesia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia to establish a benchmark for what and why it was deleted - to provide further debate/discussion on the issue clearly in a findable set of locations - SatuSuro 04:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, it could be a big enough precedent if it is well-noted at the Project (and will trim at least 80% of the middle schools currently on the list provided by Merbabu above). Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malene Espensen[edit]
- Malene Espensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable former model WuhWuzDat 15:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as can be seen from the link above at Google News, she's been a Page Three model at The Star at least twice each in 2007, 2008, and 2009. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But improve, as sources referenced in the article are really weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.195.109.67 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — 132.195.109.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- delete - a page three modal is not a get yourself a wiki bio gold star guarantee, she is not notable at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- G12 Speedy Delete. Once you delete the copyvio from http://www.skins.be/malene-espensen/biography/ (warning for porn content), you'll find there really isn't much left worth saving. Additionally, two sources are nonexistent once you attempt to check them out. Cind.amuse 05:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article contains copyvio text but no indications of substantial third party coverage. I fail to see how appearing topless in a newspaper establishes notability. Sandstein 09:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs) with the rationale "not an article." Chick Bowen 04:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How to know if she likes me[edit]
- How to know if she likes me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NOT (specifically WP:FORUM) @ d \/\/ | | |Talk 00:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a really bad how-to guide. If a male editor needs *Wikipedia* to know whether a girl likes him, he might look into the possibility that he is barking up the wrong tree: either way, this will not help him. --NellieBly (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Could have been a PROD really -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.