Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 26#Time Was (radio program)

< 25 May 27 May >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing. Merge seems acceptable, and this probably rates a mention at the BOINC article. Shimeru (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoyo@home

[edit]
Yoyo@home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, notability questionable. Immunize (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, look at other articles here in wikipedia Nano-Hive@Home. You'd have to delete most of those too. -Koppapa (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sloshball

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sloshball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable drinking game. No reliable sources cited; everything is from a blog, from someone promoting the "sport" for business purposes, or another wiki. Nothing else from reliable sources indicates any sort of widespread recognition, as opposed to beer pong or cornhole. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Lots of different blogs" just means "lots of different unreliable sources." There's not a critical mass of blogs, wikis and such that suddenly renders them reliable. There has to be some truly reliable sources, and I couldn't find anything that qualifies in a Google search. BTW, an article on this subject was already deleted by AfD once; I have no way of looking at the old version, since I am not an admin, so I don't know if this is a re-creation of that or not. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This game does have widespread play, you can google image search it or even youtube it. Furthermore, the images and videos can be found from across the country, more notably on the coasts. In reference to reliable sources, what exactly do you expect for a drinking game? a published manual? Its very clear that this game exists and is a cultural phenomenon, despite not being as popular as beer pong or cornhole. And don't primary sources, such as video and images count as reliable? These videos weren't faked.. also, I find validity in the fact that across websites the rules of the game are nearly identical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.157.189 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Your post could be used as a textbook example showing numerous arguments that really don't fly around here. Most importantly, no one is disputing that the game exists; what is under dispute is whether it is notable. We measure notability by third-party sources. "Number of YouTube videos" just doesn't cut it. Powers T 00:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to LaGrange, Georgia. Casting aside some WP:ILIKEIT, we have a single local source, which does not meet WP:N. But sure, mention it in the locality article, and if more sources turn up that actually talk about the place in any depth, we'll have the history and such. Shimeru (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LaGrange Mall

[edit]
LaGrange Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely fails WP:N. No secondary sources found that say anything more than "KB Toys closed here" or "The manager of the Chick Fil A here" -- nothing substantial AT ALL. Searches for both LaGrange Mall and West Georgia Commons turned up nothing. The singular secondary source is the only significant coverage I found at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was for a different mall in Illinois. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Addicts

[edit]
The Love Addicts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A PROD tag was removed without addressing the lack of reliable sources and, apparently, notability. From the similarity in names it is likely that the author and publisher are one, and thus self-publishing which attracts no notability. No evidence that anyone thinks this book is notable and I could find none. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article has been earmarked by Wikipedia for deletion on the basis of notability. However, this writer would implore the editors of the proposed deletion to take into account the ethics of an online encyclopedia's responsibility to its users to gather and record as much valid information about the world at large as is humanly practical, and to thoroughly explore the potential for recording the achievements of small press and independent media that has elected not to be distributed through mainstream channels.

Certainly, we all enjoy using Wikipedia as a portal to a more thorough understanding of the world around us, but the tradeoff is if we conform to the patterns of censorship, we only succeed in propagating the status quo, by effectively leveraging out the softer voices of our digital society. As our digital universe continues its pattern of expansive growth, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to allow open accessibility to new ideas and information, particularly as a matter of record. Just because an idea, book, band, scientific hypothesis, or technology, has not yet gained significant notoriety or is branded as unpopular, it is the argument of this writer that this does not preclude a significant enough reason to censor the recording of its existence.

I believe it is also worth pointing out, that during its inception, the reputation of Wikipedia itself was laid suspect by harsh critics who pointed out flaws in its design and attempted to label it as untrustworthy. I would argue that at least what some of these critics ultimately wanted to accomplish was censor the sweeping changes of how people come to process information, and abolish the threats Wikipedia presented to the conglomerates and so-called established recorders of reference, which at the time possessed firm stranglehold monopolies on information gathering. It took years before college professors came to accept Wikipedia as a credible reference. Today, through its community of devoted users as well as public trust, Wikipedia has established itself not only as a viable source of reference, but also as an authority in research and academia.

At the very least, I please ask, with the most humblest of intentions, that a very similar opportunity be given to this article, this record, and this book, the chance to prove itself worthy of recognition, and the opportunity to attain the standard of notability over time. If you find the points of my argument to be invalid, or choose to go through with the article's deletion process, I please ask, with great humility, the administrators to consider this article for 'incubation', or to be entered into record as a 'sandbox' page.--Bernardrco (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other voices that have also weighed in on what constitutes 'notability': —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardrco (talk • contribs) 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Nicholson Baker put it, "There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out."[8]

Timothy Noah wrote several articles in 2007 in Slate about the threatened deletion of his entry on grounds of his insufficient notability. He concluded that "Wikipedia's notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement."[9] David Segal commented in the Washington Post that "Wiki-worthiness has quietly become a new digital divide, separating those who think they are notable from those granted the imprimatur of notability by a horde of anonymous geeks."[11]

Another criticism is that "Wikipedia sees itself as a publication that relies on reputation that has already been produced ex ante: especially when it is based on consensual mass media judgment or—in the case of lesser known individuals—on different smaller, but mutually independent sources. Of course, this policy does not acknowledge that a Wikipedia entry may itself become a factor in reputation building: especially when the information that this entry exists is propagated by journalists and other potent 'multiplicators'".[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardrco (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, all I hear is "blah blah blah tl;dr blah blah blah tl;dr." You wanna rephrase this more succinctly? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i checked google, and google books: no sources beyond us, facebook, myspace, and author/publisher website. one search turned up, unsurprisingly, another author credit for the book: bernard co. pure self promotion, any repeat of this behavior and above editor needs to be warned about their behavior. This is absolutely, positively, not notable at this time, and a waste of time to discuss beyond getting enough editors to review it impartially and state their views.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find reliable sources establishing notability. Also appears to be a conflict of interest. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability criteria. Dlabtot (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With much respect to the previous editors' dedication to the strict letter of the law with regards to the standards of quality and excellence Wikipedia is reputed for, I must respectfully and vehemently disagree. As Mercurywoodrose has, by her own admonition, already pointed out, The Love Addicts by Jack B. Savage is easily found through the Google Search Engine, and already possesses a substantial following on Myspace and Facebook, ergo disproving Ms. Mercurywoodrose's proposed falling short of and meeting the notability requirement! Obliviously!

In response to Mr. Narthring's unfounded criticisms regarding a conflict of interest between myself and this article, I would like to offer the editors of Wikipedia, Mr. Jimmy Wales, and the Wikipedia community at large a FREE PROMOTIONAL copy of The Love Addicts by Jack B. Savage, if nothing else, for the simple sake of putting to rest these unsubstantiated rumors of bias hurled against yours truly. If you are interested in said FREE copy, please respond to bernard@savageinnovationpublishing.com. Then, for all our sakes, we can finally put to rest said criticisms, and come to a firm consensus on the veracity and validity of said article.

Look forward to hearing from you!--Bernardrco (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The aim of the Wikipedia is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. An editor trying to promote his or her product through an article is the very definition of conflict of interest and violates an article's neutral point of view. No hard feelings, but this isn't the place for advertising. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the notability requirement is not satisfied by MySpace and Facebook pages - they are not reliable sources. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd like to thank all the editors who contributed to this discussion. Although I believe some contributed more valid criticism than others, certainly all are welcome to share their thoughts, a founding principle of the Wikipedia tradition and culture.

In response, and to protect the freedoms of all future article writers and their creations, I believe there is an inherent danger when the validity and legitimacy of Independent media is measured using mainstream applications, such as Amazon.com and GoogleBooks. I would liken using these as reliable gauges for notability to using a pair of binoculars to map out all known star systems in the Universe. To put it mildly, these websites as outlets for literature are extremely limited in scope, and I would also point out, have their own agendas 'to sell', which also presents a Conflict of Interest in regards to the actual validity of examined literature.

In regards to the issue of Conflict of Interest, I plead 'Nolo Contendere', or 'No Contest'. Yes, I Bernard R. Co did knowingly write said article although I am also the President of Savage Innovation Publishing, the Independent media outlet the author elected to publish his novel through. However, I did attempt to write this article with as objective a perspective as I was capable, not solely to promote the book, but primarily because I believe it IS worthy of being recorded for future reference, and for the reference of its readers. I do not believe any of the language I used was offensive or demeaning, or followed any established advertising model. The article as it stands now is completely composed of factual information, not narrated by opinionated statements. I understand one of the purposes of the standard of notability is to keep out rampant advertising, but I don't believe the language of this article falls into the category of commercialism.

I believe it also worth pointing out that there exists a very real-world bias and stigma against Independent Media, which mainstream culture continually propagates by making it difficult for IM to find affordable exposure and coverage. At one point, being a 'runaway slave' in the Southern American colonies during the first half of the 19th century was considered a mental illness(Drapetomania) by the mainstream culture of that society. But what wasn't recorded at that time were the opinions and thoughts of the slaves themselves, or their world view. The point being, their voices were also censored and considered unworthy of note, due to a stigmatized system of values most today would deem as barbaric, immoral, and savage. Please do not allow contemporary voices to be censored in similar ways, solely because they are unpopular or unpublished by the mainstream. The lessons of History should have taught us better.

Once again, thank you all for your time and contributions. I would like to very politely ask that if you do decide to delete this article, please consider it for incubation or to be transferred into a Sandbox article until such a time it is deemed fit to meet the standards you do not believe it to currently. I hope I didn't offend anyone, as I try my best to explore and navigate my way through the Wikipedia Universe. Thanks again.Bernardrco (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernardrco (talk • contribs) 03:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rip a stitch

[edit]
Rip a stitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MADEUP. Not a WP:CSD, prod contested by author. Snowball? Amalthea 22:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally there appears to be a conflict of interest. The editor that created the article is HankGarcia and the actor that supposedly used the term is also Hank Garcia. Narthring (talk • contribs) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Visitors Center

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alaska Visitors Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third party reliable sources found, fails WP:CORP. Possibly an ad. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Dragon

[edit]
George Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the notability requirements for a writer or musician. Being nominated in 2006 for a short novel prize is unlikely to be sufficient on its own. Raising for AFD as the stub was created 4 years ago so I may be missing something. Fæ (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Secure AV

[edit]
Moon Secure AV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terry, Lockridge & Dunn

[edit]
Terry, Lockridge & Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested speedy. Non-notable accounting firm in Iowa. GregJackP (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy close as premature. Reverted to redirect (no administrator tools needed to do that...). Bring it back to AfD if the redirect is reverted to a similar uncited article, but I expect that it may merit its own article once coverage in the second film picks up a bit. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aldous Snow

[edit]
Aldous Snow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely nn. A character repeated in a second film, yes, but belongs at a character page until (if) further external sourcing arises. Currently 2/3 cites are to Wikipedia itself. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was closed as moot, article has been redirected (not me) but it looks like it was an obvious right outcome anyway, and I see no compelling reason to erase the history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the William Wilberforce Day page on Wikipedia should be saved.
The William Wilberforce Day holiday has been acknowledged by several credible sources, including Wilberforce University in Ohio. Some events sites included last year's holiday:
https://www.checkiday.com/b720bd9bf36b2cdc8338a4b6b9c0626f/william-wilberforce-day
http://www.holidays-and-observances.com/august-24.html
https://www.joniandfriends.org/celebrating-william-wilberforce/
https://llgtogether.com/wwday RickGeneric (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Wilberforce Day

[edit]
William Wilberforce Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Holiday instituted to commemorate a very notable person, however the holiday itself is nowhere close to meeting our notability guidelines. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems a bit silly to delete it, as it can properly and usefully be redirected to William Wilberforce, which I have boldly done.HeartofaDog (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have? Sure about that? -- Ϫ 05:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..ahem - which I [had boldly intended to do but got called away from the computer and then went to bed but now] have done. HeartofaDog (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AOS3

[edit]
AOS3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sources; fails WP:BAND, no apparent assertion of notability Dlabtot (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Gaston County Schools. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Hope Elementary School

[edit]
New Hope Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Past AFDs have replaced articles about random elementary schools with redirects to the article about the school district, demonstrating the consensus of the community that they do not generally satisfy WP:ORG. This article was recently redirected to the article about the school district, but the redirect was reverted, hence the need for the AFD. Edison (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toppsy Curvey

[edit]
Toppsy Curvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject passes GNG or any other notability guidelines. EuroPride (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questions Why were the 16 Google news hits not mentioned in the AfD nomination or the Prod? Why was the performer's real name removed when it is easily sourceable? And why is not the removal of such easily sourceable information, and the ignoring-- or, possibly, not even looking for-- mainstream news sourcing when prodding or nominating for deletion not a blockable offense? Dekkappai (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a bit about her two notable appearances at major league baseball games, which got coverage in the news and in books. She has appeared on notable televisions shows as well. So clearly notable. Dream Focus 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ENT, fails WP:PORNBIO, fails the GNG. Only claim to notability is for running onto field at baseball games and trying to kiss the pitcher, a copycat publicity stunt that falls under BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is so trivial that reports don't even agree on what her "real" name is. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her real name is Catherine Stathopoulos. Catherine is sometimes abbreviated as Kathy. Those are the only two variations in her name that I see. And she was covered in many places, and did the cover of magazines, BEFORE the two baseball events. Do you think all those television shows listed in the article interviewed her just for that one event? Dream Focus 15:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you haven't encountered Hullaballoo before, Dream Focus. His M.O. is to claim something like the L.A. Times is an unreliable source-- sometimes claiming it is a mirror of Wikipedia. "No lie is too extravagant in the service of censorship" is his motto... Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, he appears to be right; one of the sources in the article (You be the Umpire) appears to refer to her as "Laurie Stathopoulos." At least, as far as I can tell from the Google snippet. Another (Sports and Courts) definitely does. Shimeru (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Utter rubbish. There is no sourcing for the "multiple mainstream appearances" claim, and no more than one of those appearances can be documented at all -- not that tabloid TV appearances amount to featured appearances in notable mainstream media, the requirement of WP:PORNBIO. There's also no substantiation for the claim that the GNG is satisfied -- there's no "'Significant coverage', ... sources address[ing] the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In those supposed sources, there's little more about the subject than her stage name, occupation, and various inconsistent reports of her "real" name. Several of those googled sources simply include "Toppsy Curvey" on lists of implausible stage names. There are only two reasons behind the insistence on keeping this article, and neither the right nor the left one has any grounding in Wikipedia policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Dekkappai. I remember those kissing events being in the news in 1991 actually, they received wide coverage. Wikipedia's depth is one of its greatest strengths.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the coverage in multiple sources, but really--this is not the end of the world, gentlemen. Please extend courtesy to each other even when you disagree. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

University of Northern Virginia

[edit]
University of Northern Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-accredited, for-profit institution, zero sources that actually reference the school itself. 2 says you, says two 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, they are not currently accredited by any recognized accreditation organization. They had been accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, until it was pulled in 2008. 2 says you, says two 22:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on the foregoing comment, I went through the recent history of this article and found that a detailed, sourced discussion of the school's accreditation issues (which I believe was originally added by Orlady on 29 August 2009) was deleted yesterday, without an edit summary, by an IP editor. I've restored this and added another third party source.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being certified to offer degrees by a state licensing agency is not the same thing as accreditation. Their asserted AUAC accreditation is not recognized by the Department of Education.2 says you, says two 12:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I seriously doubt that this article would have been nominated for deletion if the nominator had looked at this version that I edited on May 24, before a series of anon IPs (probably affiliated with UVA) deleted most (or all) of the third-party sourced content and added a bunch of UVA promotional material (these edits were already discussed by Arxiloxos). I agree that the version that was nominated for deletion was garbage, but that could have been cured by reverting the recent vandalism that had created that garbage; articles don't need to be brought to AfD in order to cure vandalism. As for the theory that only accredited educational institutions should be documented by Wikipedia articles, I might support that theory if Wikipedia were a directory of educational institutions, but it's not. --Orlady (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - People need to know what a lousy school this is. Btw, this is now the top third-party source of this school: Former Accountant for University of Northern Virginia Pleads Guilty 128.231.77.192 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a degree awarding body. Sources available that meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is not our function to use our discretion to determine which accrediation bureaus are valid and which are not... we are not the gatekeepers of institutional validity. The question here is: 'is this subject notable or not'? This institution apparently operates as a degree-conferring body, and as such receives similar treatment in local and specialized media outlets. The fact that there has been controversy surrounding its accreditation and accounting practices only lends more toward the assumption that it is of sufficient interest to the typical reader who lands on its page. The version of the article from Orlady's mentioned edit would never have been nominated for deletion... always check the article history. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fitness Friday

[edit]
Fitness Friday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to violate WP:NEO (and possibly WP:NOTHOWTO), as I cannot find any reliable Ghits about the term. And the trend was started by Ryan and Joanne? Ryan and Joanne who? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noddy housing

[edit]
Noddy housing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. Google turns up only trivial mentions of the term. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth Destroyers

[edit]
Portsmouth Destroyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Google only appears to turn up sites related to the teams and its rivals. British university sports teams are rarely notable even in their own institution for mainstream British sports and American Football is itself of niche interest in the UK. Article is unreferenced, given the lack of independent sources there is little scope for it to be referenced Pit-yacker (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Tone 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TuTuMUCH

[edit]
TuTuMUCH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD: May not fulfill notability standards.

Hi, I would like to discuss the proposed deletion of the TuTuMUCH page. I believe that it does contain notable material, but if additional sources, such as national newspaper reviews, are needed, please let me know how to insert those properly in the text. I don't want to be accused of advertising later
Thanks!
HNich86 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff_G.&diff=prev&oldid=364348968   — Jeff G. ツ 19:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: HNich86, if you have reviews, news articles, or other materials made by third parties with no prompting/incentive from the movie producers or distributors, then it would be a good idea to use those materials as references in the article and you should add them right away. They would not be considered advertising provided you follow WP:NPOV. If you have a conflict of interest you may wish to post the articles on the talk page for the article and see if anyone else will add and discuss them in the article. ialsoagree (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two reviews, if someone would like to add them:

Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/750852--tutumuch-summer-school-for-aspiring-swans

Winnipeg Sun: http://www.winnipegsun.com/entertainment/2010/01/13/12451861.html

Thanks

24.77.51.193 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Farquhar Middle School

[edit]
William H. Farquhar Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school with no claims of notability. My attempt at redirecting to the school district article, which is the standard practice for non-notable schools, was reverted by User:Beyond My Ken, who seems to do that on a regular basis. My feeling is that this should be a redirect, not a deletion, but since I can't do the redirect again because of Beyond My Ken's insistance, we have to go through the deletion process. I know the article won't be deleted, because that's not the appropriate practice, but what else can we do? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Who seems to do that on a regular basis." Actually, I believe I've done it twice, both times to redirects that you recently inserted. I have no opinion about the notability of the school, but circumventing AfD with a redirect doesn't seem like the best way to go about things, if the article is not objectionable in itself, which it isn't. In the future, please be careful not to substitute your own opinion for the consensus of the community in cases where the article in question isn't a blatant problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the majority of your nominating statement is not relevant -- everything after the first sentence -- and should be struck. This is not the place for airing your grievance with another editor, that's what we have talk pages for. This is the appropriate place to delete an article which it is suggested is non-notable, so I fail to see what your complaint it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools. Non-notable middle school fails WP:ORG. Replacing the article with a redirect is the typical result for elementary school and middle school articles. It should not be necessary to go through AFD for every single exemplar of a class of organizations which have repeatedly been found not to be notable in AFD, so it seems prefectly reasonable for Proudfoot to replace the article with a redirect rather than cluttering AFD. The "consensus of the community" has been that elementary and middle schools are not notable, shown in countless past AFDs. Edison (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point me to a consensus discussion (not individual AfD's, please) where it was decided that elementary and middle schools are automatically not notable? I'd appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, per your second link: "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD..." (emphasis added). Clearly, there is no blanket rule, middle and elementary school articles must show notability, and that's what AfD is for. Bringing an article to AfD to test notability is not "clogging up the system", it's using it for the purpose it was conceived, yes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say its clogging the system. Nor is making it redirect a misuse of making a redirect. Undoing the redirect said "this needs to go to AfD." Now, going to the merits, what's the case for notability? It seems, at present, that the argument would be: first middle school in the largest district in the state (and one of the largest school districts in the United States.) Seems slightly flimsy at present.--Milowent (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it "needs to go to AfD" so that notability, or lack of it, is determined by some cross-section of the community, and not by one editor with relatively little experience on Wikipedia. It's here, and it's happening, and all is as it should be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the argument for notability? The redirect was a proper bold edit even if it was the editor's first edit.--Milowent (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, I have no comment on the notability of the school - that's why it's here, to determine that - but the article was not so egregiously bad, or malformed, or a hoax, or in any other way detrimental to Wikipedia, that short-circuiting the normal deletion process was called for. Nor is there a flat-out policy of reverting middle-school articles, they need to be tested against our standards. If it was an egregiously poor article, I wouldn't have reverted, as it could be assumed that consensus would be in accord with the move. That's not the case here, such an assumption is unwarranted, so... here it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete. The ultimate title of the article can be discussed at the talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Privilege of the predecessors

[edit]
Privilege of the predecessors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely zero sources can be found for a concept which goes by this name. The reason for this might be that the translation of the article title is not correct. SnottyWong talk 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author's explanation It is too natural that you suspect the trueness of the contents of this article. What on earth, in this world, a judge could make a decision of a trial on a basis that the laywer is a former judge or a prosecutor of his? Who can believe this? However it is true. You can find a related article by typing '前官禮遇' in www.google.com. You can learn a few Chinese characters in www.google.com, by typing '前', '官', '禮', '遇'. '前' means former, before, front, precedent like http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%89%8D; '官' means officer, staff as in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%AE%98 ; '禮' means respect, manner, courteous, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%A6%AE ; 遇 means 'treatment, encounter', as in http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%81%87 ; These four characters altogether means transliterally 'treatment former officers as if they still are at their officiers.' A blog said '판사나 검사로 재직했던 사람이 변호사로 개업하면서 맡은 사건에 대해서 법원과 검찰에서 유리하게 판결하는 법조계의 관행적 특혜.' I tranlate; 'If a judge or a prosecuter opens a lawywer's service, it is customary that judges of the court and prosecutors would give more more favor on him.; Traditional practices' All of you can get this explanation by typing 전관예우 at www.naver.com, www.daum.net, www.nate.com, the three most distinguished internet total sites in South Korea. These three internet sites have their article daum, naver, nate in wikipedia. (Gauge00 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete - Surely there is some documentation in English of the South Korean legal system? The concept explained in this article is too remote from the WP:Reliable sources that most of us can read. In his explanation above, Gauge00 sounds like he is citing a blog written in the Korean language. Blogs are usually not considered to be reliable sources even when they are written in English. If there were a well-referenced article about this topic on the Korean Wikipedia, that could make a difference. The web sites Daum, Naver and Nate do not sound like what we consider to be reliable sources. A legal handbook published in South Korea could be a better source. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or Userfy. There seems to be some sourcing by Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, but I am unsure of the applicability of these to the definition given in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 05:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finley's Temple - Ogden, UT

[edit]
Finley's Temple - Ogden, UT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Mormon temple, Google returns very few items. The article, in its current state, is nothing but a photo gallery.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McNulty

[edit]
Steve McNulty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional competition, therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. BigDom 18:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of non-league footballers get coverage in minor local newspapers. I'm not really seeing your point here. BigDom 06:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true. But in very few cases does it come from four different newspaperrs, span five years and include a fairly strong mention in a BBC article. It's also worth noting that McNulty was named Blue Square North Player of the Year in 2008 (see this article) - a fairly significant achievement. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate on how he fails WP:GNG when seven reliable sources talk about him in detail? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article." From WP:SBST, part of the notability page. All of these sources are sports coverage and as such are not sufficient basis for this topic to have a stand-alone article. This would seem clear enough to me. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the same page: "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." The phrase single event or topic is significant: as I read it, the line you quoted is only relevant if all the sources refer to the same event. These don't: they cover six different events and span five years. Then there's the interviews, which don't refer to any specific event at all! Alzarian16 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the section you quote from states 'particularly' for individuals associated with one event; ie, this also applies in other cases. For me, this section precludes people who are notable on the basis of one event, and also as indivudals who happen to fill roles which generate lots of reporting but which are not inherently notable (a local councillor might be a very similar person who generates news coverage, but is not inherently notable). The word 'routine' (as in 'routine news coverage') suggests that coverage could be fairly common over a period of time. The interviews are local newspaper interviews with a player from the local team: a very routine occurrence. I could go through the Evening Mail website and find interviews with every player who has spent more than a couple of months with Barrow AFC over the last five years; this coverage is routine sports reporting and as such does not confer notability. The only exception to this is the Conference North player of the year award; but that in itself is not at a high enough level to confer notability--Pretty Green (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Would seem to pass WP:GNG due to coverage in multiple reliable sources even if he does not meet the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE. AlexanderJBateman (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine sports tabloid journalism only. Nothing truly notable, fails ATHLETE. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an almanac. Billions of low level footballers get similar coverage in local rags, but they are not part of the enduring annals of history. --ClubOranjeT 01:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little London (band)

[edit]
Little London (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy (although I didn't nominate it) about an unsigned band. The only real Ghits I can find are to their MySpace profile and to their official website, which is down. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Halstead

[edit]
Mark Halstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who has not played at a fully-professional level (only senior appearances are with Hyde United in the sixth tier of English football). Would have no qualms about re-creation should Halstead become notable in the future. BigDom 17:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divine countenance

[edit]
Divine countenance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This duplicates the already-deleted Countenance divine (see WP:Articles for deletion/Countenance divine for that discussion) in my opinion, though the admin reviewing a SD request disagreed [5] and [6]. The article was created by an editor whose main editing interest seems to be video games, and whose purpose seemed to be to hold a "use in popular culture" section holding a single entry referring to a video game. We have a link only to one old theological dictionary, which treats the Hebrew word for "face", explaining that the "face of God" is used in the Hebrew Bible in particular interesting ways, but which does not mark it as a "theological concept". (In fact, given that "to the face of X" is the usual Hebrew way of saying "before X", it turns out that nearly all uses of "face of God" in the Hebrew Bible just mean [metaphorically] "before God".) There is just no independent concept here, and aside from word studies such as the one linked to, there are no sources to talk about this as a distinct topic. At most, we just have people saying "'face of God' means xxx". Tb (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: If the result of this discussion is "delete", presumably the just-recreated redirect at Countenance divine should be re-deleted as well. Tb (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I can't see the previous article, but in the deletion discussion it was described as being an OR-rich essay about the phrase "countenance divine" in the Blake poem, and how "countenance" might be being used as a verb. The present article is clearly not that - it is a simple description of an important concept in Judeo-Christian theology. The previous deletion of "countenance divine" is not a factor in this discussion, because this article has entirely different content. A quick visit to Google Books or Scholar will reveal how widely-discussed this concept is. It is certainly notable and appropriate for inclusion. Thparkth (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Comment - I am the "admin" mentioned above, but I am not an admin. Thparkth (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was inappropriate incorrect of you to remove the CSD without being able to evaluate the original article directly and as a non-admin, but in that case, but now that we're here, we'll let more light shine. :)
The Bible uses the phrase "hand of God" as well, and people explain what it means. Does that mean that we need a page in which it is a "theological concept"? Can you show us books about this concept which are not word studies and which are not just uses of the phrase? Tb (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it was inappropriate for me to remove it? The template you placed on the article says "f this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice." Please note also that the speedy deletion criteria G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I'm genuinely interested in why you think I shouldn't have removed it, as I often remove possibly wrongly-placed speedy deletion tags. Thparkth (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
replied on personal talk page Tb (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "books about this concept which are not word studies and which are not just uses of the phrase", I can't offer with convenient names like "The Divine Countenance for Dummies" but a cursory check on Google Books reveals this book with a chapter devoted to the concept, and many other uses which certainly discuss it as an "independent concept". Thparkth (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a word study, and not a chapter, but a short section of a page and a half. Tb (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that I think you are imposing requirements far beyond WP:GNG and leave it at that. Thparkth (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. All we have is that the phrase has been used, and the word "face" has been explained in a particular context in the Bible. Nobody--not even that dictionary you cite--identifies it as a distinctive concept, but simply as a phrase that is interesting to explore. Since you removed the SD note, I assume you'll be fixing the article into a real article and not just a sentence? Tb (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The previous article was unsourced; this article is sourced. It's still a stub so give it time to acquire more sources. According to this source the Bible uses the term in Numbers 6:23-27 (albeit without "divine" before "countenance", but "His countenance" is used which can also be taken as "divine countenance" or "Divine countenance"). The term also comes up in 7 publications on Wikisource which is enough notability outside of a biblical context to include on Wikipedia. —Eekerz (t) 11:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea of the face of God, and the long tradition that the direct sight of His face is unendurable by humans, is highly notable, the subject of extensive commentary, and could easily support an article. Note also that face of God currently redirects to a Billy Ray Cyrus album; that might need to change. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume when you say "the subject of extensive commentary", you can provide a reference to some extensive commentaries? Tb (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether it is notable, but whether it is a thing it its own right, rather than just a phrase. (Lots of people use the word "tabletop" but that doesn't mean we need an article Tabletop to talk about them separately from Table.) Tb (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that you didn't bother looking at it. Tb (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Both sides have presented arguments but it is hard to determine which side prevails. Tone 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floruit

[edit]
Floruit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Word is a verb, that means 'flourished'.

  • WP:TITLE says article titles are supposed to be nouns, not verbs.
  • There's a perfectly good wiktionary article (Wiktionary:floruit) that covers the same ground
  • We don't really do latin here; the wikipedia isn't a latin-english dictionary (although you're allowed glossaries of legal terms, but this isn't a glossary.)
  • Article is about the word, and is a simple usage guide of the word, this violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary

The wikipedia doesn't really do verbs at all, so please vote delete. - Wolfkeeper 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest possible keep. Wikipedia policies do not preclude articles on words. From WP:NOT: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness". This is one of those cases. Since 2006 WP:DOBMOS:DOB has indicated that "When the individual is known to have been alive (flourishing) at certain dates, [[floruit|fl.]] is used in articles to link to floruit, in case the meaning is not familiar..." As such there are literally thousands of incoming links. Additionally there is the precedent of the hundreds of other Latin words, and English words of Latin origin, in Category:Latin words and phrases. Deleting this would be extraordinarily unproductive.--Cúchullain t/c 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the instruction you quote is at MOS:DOB not WP:DOB. Second, it is absurd to use such a request to justify keeping an inappropriate article. There are several alternatives, including most obviously a link to wikt:floruit instead, that would work just as well if not better. Powers T 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fixed the link, thanks. I disagree that this is an "inappropriate" article, and the fact that the article has thousands of incoming links and is mentioned in the guidelines suggests that other editors agree. I also disagree that a crosslink to Wiktionary would serve our readers well. Wikitionary doesn't (and shouldn't) indicate that the word refers to "the period of time during which a person, school, movement or even species was active," that it is used when "the birth or death dates are unknown, but some other evidence exists that indicates when a person was alive," or that in art history it "specifically denotes artistic activity, not just the existence of the artist." On the other hand, it does get into information not relevant to our discussion: namely that in Latin it is the third-person singular perfect active indicative of flōreō. That's because Wiktionary is a dictionary and has a goal of including all definitions of a word, but not a depth of coverage. On the other hand, we're only interested in the one use of this term (the historical use indicating when a person, etc. was known to be alive) and to give in-depth coverage of it (limited as it may be at this point).--Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only discussions I've seen where this came up, it was generally agreed that articles on individual latin phrases (generally legal terms) weren't very productive. They tend to consist of two paragraphs, and that's it- classic dicdefs like this one. The fact that there's lots of links to an article isn't a problem either, we have bots and soft redirects to wiktionary sort out that kind of thing.- Wolfkeeper 17:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Also, WP:VERB isn't being contradicted here: the article isn't on the topic of flourishing, it's on the word "floruit". By the use-mention distinction, the word "floruit" is a noun, as it's the subject here. As in the statement, "'Cats' is a noun", where the word "cats", not cats, is the subject.[8]--Cúchullain t/c 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense at all. If you accepted your 'magic' claim (and I completely don't buy it, the use-mention distinction says no such claim at all, it doesn't turn verbs into nouns), but if you did buy it then any and all verbs would be allowed to have individual articles in the wikipedia. I can't think of any articles except this one that is on a verb.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it this way: in the sentence "'Floruit' is a Latin verb," the word "Floruit" is the subject. The subject is a noun. The article isn't about the act of flourishing, it's about the word floruit. And no, keeping this article doesn't mean we would have to "allow" any and all articles on verbs.--Cúchullain t/c 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's bollocks, for the reasons I already gave.- Wolfkeeper 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, actually. There is a clear difference between using a word and mentioning it. But more to the point, an article's title is not a reason for deletion. It's a matter of cleanup that should be hammered out on the talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 05:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonexistent? —Deor (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The usage of the word appears to be encyclopedic, supported by the source Colonel Warden found, and not duplicated (nor should it be duplicated) at wikt:floruit. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems obviously notable. —innotata 16:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. We encourage the use of [[floruit|fl.]] in WP:DOB, so it is part of the infrastructure iof Wikipedia. This means that we need the page to exist even if is was not otherwise justified, because it is part of the mechanics of Wikipedia now. We have incorporated the (somewhat musty and quaint) use of "fl." from older reference works, and it is quite useful, but many of our readers will encounter it here first and will not know what it means so the link is highly useful. -Arch dude (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a useful article, even if a brief one, and includes more information than would normally be found in a dictionary. Discussion of its usage in various fields is appropriate for an encyclopedia, since it might be used variously in different circumstances, preferred in some, and avoided in others. Deleting it because it's a word is just pedantic. P Aculeius (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep. Firstly, you're misusing the policy page, as that pertains specifically to how to title an article, not to the subject matter of the article. Verbs do exist in titles, where necessary, but in any case, that argument is being misapplied. As for Wikipedia not being a dictionary, that policy reflects the idea merely that not every single word in any given language is given an encyclopedia entry, but some words do deserve one, if they are notable enough. If swear words can have entries, I think that renders that argument invalid. Furthermore, if you saw the {{Chronology}} Navbox on the article's page, you'd see A. There are other words which merit their own articles, and B. There are Latin words on there, such as Circa.

Aside from repudiating your arguments, this is indeed a very helpful and important article, largely due to its being a very notable topic, and as a Wikipedia entry, it has much more potential for expansion and being far more informative than a terse definition at Wiktionary. KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note, Dream Focus was raising a valid point, in that if an article's title is ultimately in another language, that doesn't mean the only entry should be in its native language's Wikipedia. Should Résumé only be written about in the French Wikipedia, despite it being a word used around the world, every day? KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Résumé has been adopted into English, but the difference is that if you read the article it's not about the word Résumé, it's about Résumés, written lists of work you've done. The floruit article we're discussing is simply about the word itself and its usage. We don't need it, the wiktionary version is fine, and this article violates our policies.- Wolfkeeper 01:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - extremely widely used - similar to et cetera, which is a more substantial encyclopaedic article. Claritas (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability doesn't count if it violates an ISNOT. The notability policy says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT." [emphasis mine] This topic violates an ISNOT, because it's simply about a word. We have a perfectly acceptable dictionary, and it covers this word perfectly well. You don't keep a dog and bark yourself.- Wolfkeeper 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the "quick summary" in WP:NOT is still policy. Second, WP:DICTIONARY doesn't make it clear that verbs aren't allowed, it says "Per the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (verbs), single-word article titles are usually nouns or verbal nouns (i.e. participles or gerunds)", so now we're really talking about the WP:TITLE policy, which can be fixed by changing Floruit to a gerund, (Floruiti? I don't know, my Latin's terrible, but I'm sure someone around here can figure it out). Third, I assume you mean Wikipedia:Deletion policy, since AfD's not a policy, and it says that "[a]rticles that can never be anything other than a dictionary article ("dicdef") should preferably be merged and redirected (within Wikipedia) in an adjective→noun or a verb→gerund manner", which still leaves the door open for making it a gerund if it's just been misnamed. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, I don't think WP:TITLE is being contradicted here anyway, but as Verno says, even if it were, having a wrong title is no reason for deletion. And of course WP:NOT is policy, it even says it right at the top of the page ;)--Cúchullain t/c 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually read your earlier post, but he may actually have a point there, since we have an article on Voting and not Vote, even though you could say "Vote is a word in the English language". Of course, for all I know there are already other Latin verbs out there taunting WP:TITLE. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that voting is on the topic of voting, not the word. The topic can be discussed under the noun title "voting" rather than the verb title "vote". Floruit is about the word "floruit", so obviously it can only have that title. But this is really a discussion for the article talk page; WP:TITLE does not imply that articles that don't have the right title should be deleted.--Cúchullain t/c 12:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote is a noun, and based on your standards, entirely notable. We don't have an article on that either. That's because articles aren't on words, they're on things; like voting systems, and a vote is always part of a voting system. According to you there should a two paragraph dicdef article explaining what the word vote means. Nahhhh. That's what dictionaries are for; that's exactly what they're for. This article we're discussing violates an ISNOT; even if you take on board the entirely dubious idea expressed in WP:NOT that some words deserve an encyclopedia article; this one doesn't, there's no gain at all over the wiktionary article. It's being fort for here out of shear bloody-mindedness.- Wolfkeeper 16:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one, least of all me, ever suggested the word "vote" ought to have an article, you're pulling that out of thin air. Once again, keeping this article does not mean that all other articles on words are appropriate. To my mind this is an obvious example of a "word or phrase [that] may be an encyclopedic subject" as noted in WP:NOT.--Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, none, not a single word of this article is encyclopedic. it's just a stupid dicdef that's been linked from a bunch of places. Big fucking deal. There is not a single redeeming feature here; Encyclopedias are intended to give extended treatment. I say what extended treatment? There is none, and I see no evidence at all there will ever be so. - Wolfkeeper 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a textbook case of a dictionary entry. It looks like a dictionary entry, walks like a dictionary entry, and talks like a dictionary entry. The concept of "the word floruit" is simply not a notable, encyclopedic topic. It's just a word. Powers T 13:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used scholarly term. Article is insufficient in its current form, so might be marked as a stub. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but per Art history: its use and abuse (cited in the article), I wouldn't mind seeing some of our articles on the various possibilities of dating things, persons, events, careers, etc. - e.g. terminus ante quem and post quem - merged together somehow. How about a section in chronology (cf. relative and absolute dating)? Cavila (talk)
That's a merge not a keep.- Wolfkeeper 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a keep or merge, implicitly with some advice to make the relation between various terms/methods a little clearer. Cavila (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Clee

[edit]
Nicky Clee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Article is about a non-notable footballer who has played his entire career in non-league football and hence fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played at a fully-professional level of the sport. BigDom 16:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lynch (Footballer)

[edit]
Chris Lynch (Footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Article is about a non-notable footballer who, despite being a youth player at Wigan Athletic, has played his entire career with Hyde United and hence fails WP:ATHLETE, having never played at a fully-professional level of the sport. BigDom 16:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keepno consensus. Many editors commented on the weakness of sources, lack of sources and lack of depth of coverage. However, the efforts to find more and better sources appear to have paid off and it's my opinion that at least 2 of the provided sources constitute significant coverage and therefore are enough to make the company notable, though only just. A no consensus close may have been justified here, but I'm going with keep on the grounds that at least on delete !vote was explicitly weak and several more were not revisited during the course of the debate as more sources were added. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneriver

[edit]
Stoneriver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User has removed speedy tag several times. Going with AFD. The speedy tag was placed for blatant copyvio problems, however I don't see how this article meets general notability guidelines. The text itself is not overly promotional (but reads like a website or brochure description of a company), but there are no quality third-party links. The links include lists of companies, not articles/reviews on this company. Also, the "see also" section is highly promotional: links to blogs, facebook, twitter, and linked in. — Timneu22 · talk 16:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as irredeemable spam requiring a full rewrite to be usable as an article in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - With the changes, it's no longer irredeemable spam. However, I see nothing but press releases, so I do not see how this company meets ntoability. As such, I still maintain a stance of delete. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has sufficient information regarding how the company was formed, acquisitions, and just a general overview of their structure, not to mention plenty of external sources that notes them to be a creditable company. Also, if you not familiar with insurance technology, there are internal links, as well as external links, to understand the basic terminology. Herosrus (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that the article has been amended, in that highly promotional material was removed from "see also", specific product names were removed from the "Corporate Structure" section, and wiki links have been added for general insurance terms, one of StoneRiver's parent companies, and governmental agency NFIP. It seems that the issues leading to the speedy tag have been addressed. It also meets general notability guidelines, in that the company employees 2,500 people and the article now links out ot many other informative articles. This article could be moved from an AFD to an article for cleanup. NorthOfCola (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthOfCola (talk • contribs) 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— NorthOfCola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I have posted to another site Herosrus (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(see this discussion's talk page)--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. The only reference cited that looks like a news article, from "Insurance and Technology", turns out to be a press release. The only possibly reliable outside item I found at Google News was this, and I can't tell if Insurance Networking News is a real publication or not - looks more like a website. Overall, fails notability. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, I can see why one would think it is just a website, however, Insurance and Technology is a publication. Please see the following link [9] Here you will see White Paper, Distribution of Magazines, Podcasts and more. It is an insurance publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herosrus (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether it's a full publication or just a website, the cited page clearly displays "Insurance & Technology Online Buyers' Guide > Press Release" (emphasis added), and press releases don't establish notability no matter where they are published. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which page are you looking at? The page I looked at is this one which is an interview. That's not enough for me to change my stance, but this one wasn't a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help Me

I have added some more articles. Please see if they are notable Herosrus (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that this is just my reading and other opinions may vary. References 1 and 5 are trivial mentions, 2 is a press release, 3 appears to be routine news coverage about a buyout although some could call it significant coverage, 4 and 7 appear to be routine coverage of industries in the business - 6 appears to be both significant and reliable, 8 is behind a paywall so I can't tell one way or another, and 9 doesn't even mention StoneRiver. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel obliged to point out that there's at least one source with significant coverage, possibly two depending on your interpretation of significant, and the paywalled source. Although not enough significant coverage is of course an option, which is where I stand now that the interview has been found. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DiscoStudio.com

[edit]
DiscoStudio.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No evidence of notability. Of the references cited, two are links to pages which do not mention DiscoStudio, one is a forum post, and the other makes one very brief mention of DiscoStudio. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This page has been written as a factual representation of a british company who has shaped helped to shape the business world in their small (niche) industry. I have defended the above points as follows:
  1. (No evidence of notability): User JamesBWatson has claimed that there is (No evidence of notability). I have provided two relevant sources of reference. However, I am struggling to find others and this is because: Being a small and niche industry there is very little press coverage on the internet as most industry news and magazine sources are in printed format. All magazines relared to the DJ industry do not publish their articles (or awards etc.) online and this means there are little sources for reference available. Technicalspartacus (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WP:ARTSPAM: User Zhernovoi has claimed that the article appears to be WP:ARTSPAM (Advertising Spam). Wikipedia expalins advertising spam as follows: "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." Reply: This article is written as a factual article and is not written with sales-oriented language whatsoever. In addition, it has one external link to a commercial website which is incidently the official website of the subject in question. If the user Zhernovoi believes that this is written as an advertisement, maybe Zhernovoi would be so kind as to help re-write the part that he believes is of an advertisement nature? Technicalspartacus (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dream Focus suggests that the article looks like an advertisement. However the point above covers this and again, I would like to invite Dream Focus to help imporve the article article and re-write the part that they believe it of an advertisement nature. In addition, they suggest that the references are questionable. I have also explained reasons for the lack of citation references in point 1 above.

Delete It looks like an advertisement to me. No news hits anywhere. The references are somewhere confirming that half of the houses in UK had internet access, a magazine created by this company to promote itself apparently, a post someone made on a forum, and a personal webpage where someone mentions that you can get that item at DiscoStudio.com. And you said "keep" twice, which isn't allowed. You don't state that every time you respond to something. Dream Focus 09:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD does not suggest that an argument should be disregarded if it agrees with a consensus already formed. It merely says that if a consensus has already been formed then one may possibly choose not to bother adding another comment agreeing with it. Also, I wonder whether Technicalspartacus understands what a consensus to delete means. He/she is arguing for a keep, which indicates that he/she does not accept such a consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not believe a consensus to delete has been formed. My point was that Dream Focus is itterating a point already made and to this avail should be discounted. My apologies, I correct myself, I used the wrong word. Where I used the word disregarded above should have been discounted. Technicalspartacus (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD is being misused as well, as WP:CONS in case of AfD has to be seen as a delete or keep agreement between the editors participating in the AfD discussion and not as a no-go for representing a similar opinion. User:Dream Focus added value to the previous statements by questioning the reliability of provided references so there is absolutely no reason to discount the point he made. Zhernovoi (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technicalspartacus, you can agree with someone else's deletion rationale without having your !vote discounted. It's actually quite common. Just because someone has a valid rationale for keeping/deleting an article doesn't mean that I have to try to come up with a different rationale in order to submit my opinion. If someone has a valid rationale, and many people agree with it, then that is what we like to call consensus. SnottyWong talk 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Strong keep because this company is the pinacle of the DJ industry and is highly notable! - If DiscoStudio.com isn't notable I don't know what is!

  1. WP:ARTSPAM - (Advertising) Two users above have said that they believe the article is written like an advertisement and have given this as their reason for their vote to Delete the article. Technicalspartacus has openly invited both users to update the article and re-write the part that they feel is of an advertising nature. Since no-one seems to have taken Technicalspartacus up on this invitation, I therefore presume that such users are withdrawing their nomination to Delete.
  2. Fails WP:GNG - Non-notable This point has been iterated above by a couple of users. Technicalspartacus has said that most of the sources are not available online. I agree; as this is an industry I know well as a musician. In-turn, another user has said that offline sources can also be provided; I agree and on this point and the author has quite openly said on the article's Talk page that they will continue to look for references and update the article appropriately. This shows the author's commitment to the article.
  3. Finally I do not presume to suggest that the above users know nothing about the subject. However, users of Wikipedia are encouraged to participate in subjects of which they have an active interest or some kind of knowledge and/or expertise. DiscoStudio.com is the most well known website in the DJ industry by far! I understand that the DJ equipment industry is a small industry (and to some an insignificant), however DiscoStudio.com is without a doubt the most notable website in the DJ equipment industry. HenryHayes (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel LaHue

[edit]
Daniel LaHue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is simply a false bio page created by the user about himself. Falsely stating he is a writer and producer for the television series' 24 and Prison Break. I am a watcher of both shows and know this is false. The link to IMDb links to Evan Katz, an actual writer/producer for 24. The name "Daniel LaHue" does not exist on IMDb. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete G11 Non-admin closure. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Beach Resort

[edit]
Summer Beach Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this article contains referneces and quite allot of content, I'm not convinced this is notable enough. Would usually tag for speedy but I'm not quite sure. Acather96 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bywater

[edit]
Mark Bywater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Master plumber and lecturer who doesn't obviously meet WP:NOTABILITY - per WP:NOTNEWS - he's only received two mentions in local newspapers, and the link to the BBC website doesn't work. The creator has argued that Bywater meets WP:ACADEMIC and presumably also WP:ANYBIO, because he has "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." I'm not sure whether becoming a "Master Plumber" qualifies as an academic award or honour, because plumbing is a skilled trade, not an academic discipline. Claritas (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE - not notable by any Wikipedia standard. I don't see any evidence of a highly prestigious award, nor of national or international recognition. This is a plumber who has taught at a small non-notable FE college for the past seven years. Every FE college in the country has a plumbing teacher. Master plumber is a trade qualification with criteria that any competent tradesperson should be able to achieve after 10 years in the business - there are already more than 150 other master plumbers in the UK. While this number may seem small, the awarding body CIPHE has only had its charter for a short time and more masters are being given this trade qualification as they submit their paperwork. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep – The person meets the basic criteria:
WP:NOTABILITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingOfTheLynn (talk • contribs) 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC – A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

He is also notable by at least one of the following additional criteria:
WP:ANYBIO – The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
WP:TEACH – The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

And may meet criteria for:
WP:TEACH – The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.
WP:CREATIVE – The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
WP:DIPLOMAT – Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.
WP:DIPLOMAT – Although diplomats often participate in issues of significant diplomatic importance without receiving specific individual coverage, sufficient reliable documentation of their role is required.

The article meets all three cardinal content policies states on WP:Guide to deletion:
WP:Neutral point of view
WP:Verifiability
WP:No original research

 – KingOfTheLynn (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak keep I actually give some stock to the credential that there are only 160 or so "Master Plumbers" in the entire United Kingdom, and that he has received coverage in a variety of sources. I see no reason why a plumber could not have an article on Wikipedia for being a plumber, particularly if that person has achieved notability among plumbers. Mandsford 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really want to say keep, but the notability of the reward (even though it is from a association recognized in law) is iffy, if it was rewarded for excellence instead of for time practicing it would be more convincing. If he had worked on some sort of restoration that was covered in the news or something like that I would say yes (there is a Mark Bywater covered on BBC but it's a different guy). Columnists for Fine Homebuilding have more notability than this guy currently.--Savonneux (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I think this article should be kept. I'm uncertain if he meets WP:ACADEMIC. But there is no question that he obviously meets the requirements to have an article as per:
WP:ANYBIO – The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
I work in the Plumbing profession and believe that the title of Master Plumber is awarded to people who have met certain criteria's and are members of certain organisations, such as the The Guild of Master Plumbers, and how long they are in the plumbing industry is just one of the many criteria needed to become awarded. There are many others. This award is almost the equivalent to a knighthood for a plumber and is highly prestigious.
The award is national as it is only available within the UK and is highly noted within both the plumbing and education professions.
After reviewing the article. I feel that as this person has traveled to Germany to negotiate about an international partnership, and negotiated with other representatives from a French school. I feel that he may also meet the criteria for:
WP:DIPLOMAT – Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.

 – DevDevDevon (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment – He has been appointed by the College of West Anglia, one of the largest colleges in East Anlgia, to represent it and establish an international academic link with colleges in difference countries as part of the Comenius project, an international programme established by the European Union.

    In conclusion, he is representing an establishment as part of an international program, a type of diplomacy.
 – KingOfTheLynn (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment According to this web page on the CIPHE site, and discounting general academic criteria (none of which requires being published), it would appear that the only significant criteria required are:
  • that the applicant has been engaged in the industry for at least 10 years
  • that there are no significant complaints on the applicant's Institute record
  • that two nominated referees sign the application
I might add that knighthoods below a certain rank are generally non notable ISMs, MBEs and OBEs for example, simply because they are rewarded for terms of service rather than notable accomplishments, that and there are well over 12,000 living recipients (there is no guideline on this since it's usually brought up on per afd basis, I'm pretty horrible at searching archives but here is an example [10].--Savonneux (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – You also forgot to mention the following minimum criteria:
  • that they are a Member (MCIPHE) or Fellow (FCIPHE) of the CIPHE and also hold the description of 'Registered Plumber';
To become a member of CIPHE, they must meet the following minimum criteria:
  • at college as a student or lecturer
  • a plumbing designer, consultant or engineer for a manufacturer or merchant
Source: CIPHE
  • that they are qualified to City & Guilds Advanced Craft Level or S/NVQ Level 3 or equivalent and be accepted for City & Guilds Licentiateship;
To become accepted for City & Guilds Licentiateship, they must meet the following minimum criteria:
  • a level 3 pass
  • a further career qualification
  • five years experience at supervisory or first line management level subsequent to your level 3 pass.
Source: City & Guilds
  • that they are registered with ECuk at either Engineering Technician/ Incoporated Engineer or Chartered Engineer level;
  • that they conform to the CIPHE's Code of Professional Standards while in membership of the Institute;
1. Perform professionally, competently and responsibly
Carry out their own work or supervise the work of others with due regard to technical quality, appropriate insurance cover and the interests of employers, employees and clients; communicating and performing to an acceptable standard; and with a duty of care to employers, employees and clients.
2. Safeguard the environment and public health and safety
Take all reasonable care to avoid damaging the environment or creating any danger of death, injury or ill-health to any person or damage to property.
3. Comply with all relevant laws, regulations, standards and codes
Work in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements and conform to the appropriate European and British Standards Codes of Practice. In the case of Fellows and Members, registered with the ECUK, also conforming to that Council’s Codes of Professional Practice.
4. Broaden, improve and maintain their skills, knowledge and personal qualities
Keep up-to-date with developments in the plumbing mechanical engineering services industry by attending and participating in Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and other relevant training activities.
5. Uphold the dignity, standing and reputation of the Institute and the plumbing mechanical engineering services industry
Act professionally and adopt a form of behaviour and appearance that will not cause offence or embarrassment to others. To maintain the Institute’s good name and that of the industry generally, members in the course of their work are expected to act professionally and adopt a form of behaviour and appearance that will not cause offence or embarrassment to others.
6. Abide by the Code of Professional Standards
Accept responsibilities as a member to comply and co-operate with the Institute in the operation of its disciplinary procedures and any investigation that may occur as a result.
Source: CIPHE
 – KingOfTheLynn (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment – Why is it bizarre? As I mentioned previously.
He has been appointed by the College of West Anglia, one of the largest colleges in East Anlgia, to represent it and establish an international academic link with colleges in difference countries as part of the Comenius project, an international programme established by the European Union.

In conclusion, he is representing an establishment as part of an international program, a type of diplomacy.
 – KingOfTheLynn (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Hard to see how he would qualify as notable. He has not had significant news coverage except very local; apparently his overseas trips did not generate any press. As an "academic" he gets zero hits at Google Scholar; merely teaching classes does not qualify one as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The references are regional, not local. Wikipedia requires that for an article about a person to be credible, the person must be the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
    The Heinrich-Hertz-Berufskolleg did cover the event, but I do not have a direct link to the article as it is part of a feed that only shows the most recent events. I have contacted the college asking if they could provide me with their press release.
 – KingOfTheLynn (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. It's clear that he doesn't pass WP:PROF, and the only thing we can find sufficient reliable sources about is the single fact that Mark Bywater was awarded the title of master plumber, as spammed across half a dozen or so local newspapers. The title itself doesn't seem particularly impressive, and per WP:LOCAL: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." WP:LOCAL is more about places than people but I think the same principle applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hanks

[edit]
Jim Hanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources provided or found. Supposedly has a lead role in a non-notable production with "a cult following of sorts". Supposedly sometimes subs for his brother in videogames of Toy Story and such. Without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, he is not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE Nominator has modified his opinion and offered a "speedy keep" down below. Seems to be a very courteous withdrawal. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Absolutely. While I understand we generally like to let at least 7 days go by before a non-admin closure, I feel this one is clear enough to consider closed, unless there is some remarkable reason for deletion hiding out there that I simply cannot imagine. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The It Factor

[edit]
The It Factor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After checking history it looks like user SkrallAgori deleted part of the article but I still think it should be deleted from Wikipedia and moved to Wikitionary.--Robixen (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty Years' War and Norway

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Thirty Years' War and Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like one in a series of articles, but no other country has a "Thirty Years' War and ..." article devoted to it. And I question whether Norway should have. They were very little involved in the war. The first and third paragraph of this article don't describe Norway at all. The second says that Denmark-Norway participated, but this was a venture of the Danish king, and the fighting did not reach Norway. Finally, the fourth paragraph mostly describes the Torstenson War, which has its own article, and if anything should be linked to from the main Thirty Years' War article. To sum up, this is an unneeded article which hardly even describes what it pretends to. Geschichte (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. – sgeureka t•c 08:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Colors

[edit]
Sonic Colors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:Crystal - No ref given for release date, nor can one be found on Google - WP:RS or otherwise. Codf1977 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Nom withdrawn as there is now more than a like hood this game will be released. Codf1977 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The release date is at the end of the teaser trailer Sega released. (Edit: it's at the end of the press release as well.) SynergyBlades (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sega official sites are now up. Can we close the deletion nomination now? Thanks. 212.225.118.10 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still no date - all it says late 2010 - wait till a date is announced. Codf1977 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not crystal balling if the game has actually been announced. There are plenty of games with articles here and no solid release date, just vague seasonal dates given: The Last Guardian, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, etc. This game exists, just as they do, so either put an AfD on all of them or close this one. Cheers. 212.225.118.10 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Codf1977, I think you've misunderstood the crystal rules... They state that since the release date has been announced officially (regardless of how vague it is), the article can exist. --Josh (Mephiles602) 18:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, a game doesn't need a release date to be notable. Look at Duke Nukem Forever, been in development for 13 years, no release date in sight. That among tons of other games. ScienceApe (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, it's an official game, the date says this year even in the trailer so therefore the article should stay. --VitasV (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ReggiiMental

[edit]
ReggiiMental (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this article doesn't meet WP:BLP. The article makes claims of notability by saying that the artist has been mentioned in "a host of reviews including Hip Hop Connection and Big Smoke Magazine", but I can't find any actual articles to corroborate either claim. All the other references given on the page fail WP:RS in some way - a lot are blogs, some are links to Amazon products, some Youtube videos of songs he's made, and I see a handful of self-published data about albums. There's one link to a RollingStone article, but the article doesn't exist anymore, and I can't find a version of it anywhere. On top of all that, the article is being used for promotional purposes by Rustyjay (talk · contribs), who I'm pretty sure is the subject of the article given this version of his talk page which points to the subject's MySpace. So overall, I'd say that notability is really sketchy, and the page is largely promotional. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to suggest those three too, but didn't want to seem to have some sort of vendetta. I completely agree with your comment, though I think that this is only one of a sizeable number of UK music stubs concerning genres such as hip-hop and drum n bass that, whilst they are of significance to fans of those genres (of which I am one), they simply don't even meet WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 15:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apiramy Visuvanathan

[edit]
Apiramy Visuvanathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this yesterday sometime for a speedy on nonsense; but, well, it's not patent nonsense. In any event, though, it's riddled with weasel words, and in my opinion borders on an attack article. Notability is most certainly at question. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was already speedily deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Sen

[edit]
Vikas Sen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A credible assertion of notability is made, calling Sen an "author of successful blogs". However there is no indication (either in the article or elsewhere on the web) that his blogs are "successful" (i.e. no indications that they are referenced by any other reliable sources). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be that as it may, hit counts do not make a blog notable. References in reliable sources do. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coy Stewart

[edit]
Coy Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP with one source. Zero independent sources. "Best known for" work on a sitcom that hasn't aired yet. One other role, supposedly in post-production. SummerPhD (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that it's hard to be "best known for" a future show. Maybe this article is valid later, but not yet... — Timneu22 · talk 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates versus Ninjas

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pirates versus Ninjas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should just be a summary in List of Internet phenomena. As the article stands, it's just a single line of actual information followed by a (largely self-serving) list of places that mention the phenomenon. This is only ever going to become a horrible mess; it's just not necessary or helpful. Wikipedia does not need to be a hub for pirate/ninja humour. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — Minkle Slowberries (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Those aren't sources, they're just links. A reference is something attached to information to show where that information comes from. The article is essentially a portal. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read two of the points in the article, followed the reference links to the relevant page and the information was there. I'm not sure what you are talking about? Perhaps you think that the wp article has to have exactly the same words as that on the cited page? Unless they are direct quotes they don't, they have to demonstrate the point is factually correct, not taken out of context or otherwise skewed. I don't necessarily disagree that the article looks a bit like a portal, but this is an internet meme, so articles like this will always look like a portal, it lives on the internet and nowhere else much. To me the article looks fine and the cites look fine, so I don't really have much else to say on the matter now. Szzuk (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are more links to other articles and websites than there are words in the informative part of the article. They're not references, they're indiscriminate trivia. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This the place for notable memes. Note that your suggestion to keep and improve is same as the result of the first AfD request. It didn't work then, and I don't see why now is any different. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you know so much about Wikipedia, you'll be kind enough to let us know the accounts you've edited under before? Actually, keeping and improving is not the same as merging to a list, and if you want to improve it using the sources I've found, please do go ahead, and then you can withdraw this nomination. Fences&Windows 20:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should he/she have to talk about previous accounts? This isn't a social club or popularity contest, is it? It's supposed to be a repository of information. Or was once. 81.152.72.174 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a legitimate accusation to make (with y'know, facts and evidence to back it up) then please go through the official channels so that it can be dealt with. If your comment is as it appears, please find better ways to cope with opinions that do not match your own. Have a read through Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the duck test, an account created for the purpose of nominating an article for deletion that uses jargon like AfD is not a new user and is probably a sockpuppet. Using an alternative account to nominate articles for deletion is not a legitimate use. As for WP:NOT, try reading WP:GNG. Fences&Windows 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a "test" of anything, that's outright attack via policy! Nominating an article for deletion is not unusual behaviour, and is in fact something that Wikipedia explicitly suggests that you create an account for. Not every new user deserves to be accused of sockpuppetry for not being a blustering idiot.
Can you find anything that satisfies Wikipedia:Notability_(memes) in any way? Minkle Slowberries (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones, specifically? I would expect very clear and concrete violations of those rules to qualify your claim--not vague interpretations--so I must be particularly dense in not seeing any. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any of those points could be twisted to argue for the inclusion of any non-inflammatory content in Wikipedia, which is no doubt how poor articles like this manage to exist. Similarly, I could interpret them to suit my argument: 2) I read it, understood it, and saw the poor editing. Didn't come to the conclusion that the article should stay in spite of this. 3) It's beyond tagging, but I would agree that tags would be an improvement should the article stay. 4) Considered it, proposed it. It should redirect to a blurb in the Internet memes article. 7) Read it, didn't come to the same conclusion as you. 9) Apparently we disagree on what is a source and what is cruft/spam. 10) Not a recent article, history suggests that it's an unsalvageable mess.
I'm yet to see an argument showing the content to be useful. Instead we're just told that it's a popular meme (so? It belongs on the popular Internet meme page as suggested in the nomination) and that it has a lot of sources (Wikipedia likes sources, right? So we'll just call the inappropriate collection of links sources and pretend that this makes the content legitimate...? No.) Minkle Slowberries (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting most of the article was an improvement, but watch as people add their own links back in, meaning that it has to be tirelessly watched and pruned forever (and I'm sure it will just end up back its previous state). The article content in its current state could be moved to List of Internet phenomena and we wouldn't have this problem. Minkle Slowberries (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not oppose a merge.Active Banana (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Kerschbaum

[edit]
Barrett Kerschbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Professional Bog Snorkeler? Unsurprisingly no evidence is presented of this and and a search has turned up nothing. I very much doubt there are professional bog snorkellers and there is no other indication of notability. JD554 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was able to find references to Bog Snorkeling 'championships' but no indication that these events included professional athletes. Unable to locate any professional leagues that would confirm inherent notabilty, nor any indication that this apparent novelty sport would have the level of amateur competitions to classify its athletes as notable. Marcy Winter (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dors Feline

[edit]
Dors Feline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable nude model. Fails WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wheat Thin Bomber Incident

[edit]
The Wheat Thin Bomber Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy contested, looking for WP:V and WP:RS. Elevating for discussion, but I believe this is a delete. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. While this may not be a hoax, it does fail both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS. I did a gSearch for "A Gaper's Guide to Jackson Hole", one of the references and guess what I found, just the article, nothing else, Also found nothing on the author of the book, "Dojen Gurhani". Two of the references don't even mention this "incident and one that does is unreliable. Not a hoax, but a very un-notable incident that also fails WP:RS. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Totally un-notable and not even a candidate for Uncyclopedia. I looked up '"Tensleeper Press"' and guess what? Peridon (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked up '"Steve Swan" "wheat thin"' and apart from Wikipedia (2 entries) absolutely nothing. Same for '"wheat thin bomber"'. I can't even find 'Slight River' as a town - or even as a place. Who can demonstrate that this ISN'T a hoax? Peridon (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called Togwotee Dispatch has only one contributor, its creator, and virtually no content. "Yottaly joined our community, Today, 3:31 AM EDT" (quoted from http://togwoteedispatch.wetpaint.com/whatsnew - wetpaint.com being a free web-hosting site). Peridon (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how odd. The creator of The Yellowstone Tribune is Yotta Yoctaly. About six hours ago. No older site activity is listed. I change my !vote to Speedy Delete as this is a hoax and would mention WP:SNOW as having relevance to this discussion. Peridon (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delelte - No evidence of notability as all "sources" are faked (and would fail as local news anyway). Did I ever tell you about the time one of the other instructors rewired the controls on my scooter while I was in class? Not quite 6 boxes of Wheat Thins out of a plane window, but still pretty funny. We still talk about it all the time, not that it was notable... - SummerPhD (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete - I just found this page, so I apologize for a slow response. I'll say what I said on the talk page: I know this seems fishy, but you have to realize that it's coming from a part of the world that simply doesn't use the internet for its normal, day-to-day business. I can get you pictures of the same stuff in print, if you like, but I don't know that you would take that any more seriously. I know this is a very informal sort of proof, but here's a picture of a "Wheat Thin Bomber" T-Shirt that I found. I would point out two things: 1) People do not make T-Shirts about things that never happened, and 2) people do not make T-Shirts about things that are not interesting. As for the credibility issues, I'm not sure what to say. The sources I cited are not exactly encyclopedias; they're basically tourist literature, the sort of stuff you get at welcome centers and novelty shops. The book is much the same. I don't know where it's published, or if it's produced by professionals or amateurs or what. But they are sources. Besides which, this isn't exactly a controversial topic. I would think that somewhere throughout all this you would at least come to believe that the event did happen and that some people do care, and beyond that the sources don't really matter for something of this nature. I've been looking at the Wikipedia citation guidelines, and it seems to me that the only circumstances for which sources are absolutely necessary are those that involve some sort of conflicting info, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If it's really a problem, put a request for more citations at the top of the page, but at the very least remove the deletion candidacy. YellowstoneOutfitted (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)— YellowstoneOutfitted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Another thing comes to mind, regarding the first two citations. The event took place in the thorofare region of Wyoming, which is a very noteworthy area, since it is the farthest you can get from a road in the lower 48 states, is home to the earliest hunting season in the state, is one of the only places in the world that straddles drainages of two oceans, and forms a critical part of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. However, there is no Wikipedia article about this area, and the only references you can find to it online are passive mentions in either commercial outfitters' sites or personal pages about expeditions in the area.
If you're not from Wyoming, this is bound to seem strange. But the fact of the matter is that people from this state don't write wikipedia articles; I've traveled all over the U.S. and abroad, and the only place I've found that is more remote (as a whole) is rural Alaska. Even there internet has more of a presence than in most of Wyoming, since alternative media are even harder to come by. This event is not un-noteworthy or a hoax, it's just begotten of a region and a culture that is probably very foreign to most people who are not themselves a part of it. YellowstoneOutfitted (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)— YellowstoneOutfitted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
My final petition is this: The Wheat Thin Bomber Incident, whatever else it may be, is interesting. Or at least I think so. It is not vandalism, it is not hurting wikipedia's image or credibility, it is not defaming anyone, it is not unreasonably promoting anyone, it is not inhibiting any more important issue from being addressed, and it is not altogether poorly written. It does not violate any of the statutes for which wikipedia stands. And finally, it may be useful or interesting to someone, somewhere, sometime. If you have found it even the least bit meritorious in some regard, than it may have been worth it. I am not going to pursue this issue any further; I am not a passionate wikipedia editor by nature, and I would have preferred not to have spent as much time as I have debating this issue. I merely felt like the claims against this article were unfair, and I wanted to justify them reasonably. I have made all the justifications that I am willing or able to make. I am signing off now, and I don't plan on returning, either to add to what I've said or to see how others respond. I leave this to the rest, and I only ask that they earnestly ask themselves whether this article stands to benefit or detriment the wikipedia as a whole. YellowstoneOutfitted (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)— YellowstoneOutfitted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment These papers haven't got a single ghit - not even a directory reference that comes up. Nor has the cited book. This doesn't do much for their acceptability as sources. Anyone can get a t-shirt with anything on it. I have one that says 'So many cats, so few recipes'. Doesn't mean I eat cats. As to rural Alaska, an editor on Wikipedia that I know from elsewhere lives in fairly rural Alaska. The main problem here is that no sources are showing up that we can regard as reliable. Both those papers going online at the same time as this article appears, and both carrying the subject and little else? Have a look at WP:DUCK and you'll see what we mean. So far, you appear to be the sole source - assuming you are Yottaly and co - and therefore if this is not a hoax, it is Original Research WP:OR. Happening in a notable area doesn't make something notable in itself. And if the area is so notable, why not give us an article on it rather than this almost non-event? Peridon (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book is allegedly published in Slight River, Wy, by the Tensleeper Press - according to the information given by the creator who now doesn't seem to "know where it's published, or if it's produced by professionals or amateurs or what.". As the info is supposed to be on pages 85 and 86, I would imagine some professional involvement. If it was home produced on legal size paper at four pages to a sheet folded/stapled, that would be a minimum of 22 sheets which would take a reasonably large amount of force to hand staple - plus a long arm stapler. (I am a professional...) As I said above, I can find no evidence of the publisher or the town or village - or even the river. I would be interested to hear how the Togwotee Dispatch manages its paper edition and what its circulation is, not to mention who they are seeing as Togwotee Pass (elevation 9658 ft/2944 m) is a rather high mountain pass. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidental to the above, why are both these 'papers' carrying the story of something that 'happened' nearly five years ago? Rural and out in the sticks maybe, but I do wonder... Peridon (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I don't often participate in AFDs anymore, but I couldn't pass this one up. Obviously most of the stuff on this page is misleading or false. The Thorofare Plateau is only about 16 miles from the nearest road, and only about 50 miles from Cody, Wyoming. Rugged yes, notably remote no. The nearby Two Ocean Pass is notable for having a stream that drains into two oceans and indeed we have an article about it. We also have an article about Younts Peak which is the most notable peak in the immediate vicinity of the Thorofare Plateau and the headwaters of the Yellowstone River, so the region is already reasonably represented on the pages of Wikipedia. As to the ruralness of the area, the event in question occurred between two of the more technologically savvy areas in Wyoming; Cody and Jackson, Wyoming. Both cities have well established newspapers (both of whom have an online presence), so it is highly unlikely that this event would have gone undocumented both on paper and online. I don't doubt that something resembling this event probably occurred and that a handful of locals in the area consider it to be a fine tale, but there is an alphabet soup of policies that preclude it from being included in Wikipedia, sorry. And on a personal note, I am from Wyoming, and I've written plenty of Wikipedia articles, thank you very much. But thats okay, feel free to keep underestimating us. CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYOHelp!) 05:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The evidence to establish notability does not exist. Nuttah (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just reporting that there has been no activity on either of the online 'newspapers' since the 24 hours of their creation, which was approx. five days ago. Peridon (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, http://www.wetpaint.com/ provides a "roll your own website" service. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cull

[edit]
Andrew Cull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy contested, elevating to discuss and determine notability. UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion page for my comments. Thank you. KimSimpkins (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiranandani Meadows

[edit]
Hiranandani Meadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable residential complex in India. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page statistics View count for Hiranandani Meadows which is good enough, I think we should keep this article. KuwarOnline (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to ball chain. Straightfoward fork once the spam had been removed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bead chain

[edit]
Bead chain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declining speedy G11, as this is not about a specific product, nor is it promotional. However, it's little more than a dict def, and that's not speedy allowed either. delete UtherSRG (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm going to mark this for merger instead. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ellis grave

[edit]
Mary Ellis grave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable grave, nothing more than an obituary or genealogy. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture of Jewish Women

[edit]
The Culture of Jewish Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonsensical ego-stroking, with mild sexist connotations. <Hollandmc><Talk> 09:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic original research (despite the references). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quote from the article: "Being a Jewish woman in contemporary times is relevant to any other woman in today’s world. They go to school, search for jobs, get married, and have children. A typical Jewish family has more than two children, as they are encouraged to “have sex and give birth to many children.” GONG!!! Topic is notable, presentation is complete garbage. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not safisfy minimum wikipeadia standarts. As said before its unencyclopedic original research. A proper article sould be Judaism and gender.Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like a school assignment essay and not a very good one at that, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per everything above. — Timneu22 · talk 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's quite an assortment of generalizations about a group of people who number in the millions. Mandsford 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly redirect to Women in Judaism. i suppose there may be some accurately sourced statements from this article that could be added to women in judaism. I of course have no way of knowing if any of this is accurately sourced. if the author of this can understand why this is completely inappropriate for WP, perhaps they can join the discussion at that article, get an education on what to add and how, and perhaps they can contribute. I dont mean to encourage the person if they dont see the problems here. hello: if you are angry about this afd, DONT go there, please.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Lee Quets

[edit]
Allison Lee Quets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a case of WP:BLP1E, although admittedly the event has stretched over the course of several years. Should be deleted on the "do no harm" basis. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Doctors

[edit]
The Love Doctors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why not? what is the scope? is local notability not true notability? Mind you The Palm Beach Post is a major paper with a large readership. riffic (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, none of the notability guidelines say anything about local news coverage; Let me remind you of the general notability guideline: a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. riffic (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. A single mention in the local news does not do much to establish notability. A science fair at a local elementary school might generate a similar amount of coverage and that's certainly not notable either. If this show were notable, more people would have more to say about it.--RadioFan (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but it has plenty of significant coverage.. see that link above, looks like this: "(Find sources: "The Love Doctors" – news · books · scholar · images)?" Go ahead, click on news, it won't hurt. Keep simply because this nomination is invalid, nominator didn't bother to do a good faith attempt to confirm that sources do not exist before nominating for deletion. riffic (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and if that search link at the top of this AfD is too confusing for anyone, do this: click here and qualify your search with the phrase "love doctors" wzzr. What does this look like? OH YES SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES. riffic (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the number of hits in the Palm Beach paper's archives on the search string you've provided is impressive, the notability of this show is still not clear. These all seem to be coming from the same Palm Beach newspaper and are more along the lines of calendar items or mentions of this show when the subject of the article appears on the show rather than the kind of coverage that WP:GNG is looking for where the show is the primary subject of more in depth coverage. Its really difficult to tell how significant this coverage is since this newspaper charges for access to its archives. Has this show been covered in any books or other newspapers?--RadioFan (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not just the Palm Beach Post, the search I provided also listed these other fine news organizations: TCPalm (E. W. Scripps Company), South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, and Bradenton Herald, so basing your argument against the sources "all seem to be coming from the same newspaper" is disingenuous, and incorrect. riffic (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the lions share is coming from this one paper and none of the other google news hits seem all that significant either. I'm not seeing any of the coverage "address[ing] the subject directly in detail". They are just brief mentions of this radio program, little more than calendar items or mentions of the program in promotion of some other event that the article is addressing directly in detail.--RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have relisted this, as the only additional comments arising from the original relisting are from the editors who commented in the first week. I feel that more people need to present their opinions here before a decision can be made -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amorth band

[edit]
Amorth band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy contested with a claim of notability on talk page. Elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BAND and reliable sources could not be found to verify this band. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Iannarelli Jr.

[edit]
Anthony Iannarelli Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed for deletion because "Fails WP:BIO. People running for office are not considered notable on Wikipedia. No other evidence of notability presented." Prod removed without improvements. Google news give sno significant results[29]. Fram (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N-Strike

[edit]
N-Strike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable toy line. Notability is not asserted, and article is rife with personal opinion and original research. — Dædαlus Contribs 06:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine A. Fitzpatrick

[edit]
Catherine A. Fitzpatrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event : "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."

Her involvement in video games, her career and so forth - hardly sets her apart from the millions of other people who play Second Life, or the hundreds of thousands who work as translators around the world. The subject has been quoted - briefly - in two low-profile newspaper articles, one on Wired and the other in the New York Times. She was not of primary importance in either article. Both mentioned a number of individuals, and she, like the rest, was covered in only a small percentage of the total content. There have been many newspaper and magazine articles about Second Life over the last seven years, in which numerous players have been quoted; yet, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information, it would be inappropriate to create articles for everyone who has ever had anything to say about the subject in a newspaper or magazine.

There is already a Wikipedia article about Second Life. If anything, a "notable residents" section could be added to that article, and perhaps her name could be put into that section, although that might look rather like trivia and perhaps not be appropriate (and if so, is further justification for removing this writeup.) Second Life has a Wikia site as well, and she is listed there. As it stands, the rest of her biography is not supported by the notability requirements; there is just nothing that sets her apart as a translator or anything else in a way that is broadly interesting.

There is one final (and significant) matter, which is that the subject objects to her real life ("RL") information being "outed." This is based on the presumption of anonymity in Second Life; a user's RL name, gender, location, etc. are not normally revealed. This is an unusual case, as she deliberately gave her full name to a magazine and allowed them to photograph her. Nevertheless, on her own blog, she strenuously objects to the outing of her name and gender:

http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2005/11/not_bored_not_d.html

"Weedy Herbst, that vitriolic little busy-body on the forums, is quick to show up and viciously mock Cocoanut's naming of my RL name and outing of my RL gender. She completely forgets that this was not my wish last April, was not on this blog, was not in the game anywhere, and was not said inworld -- indeed only became known because of vicious stalkers trolling around year-old posts upon posts in old Herald articles and putting it together with other factoids they dug up. [...] I'd prefer that my RL information not be discussed and spread about. But because I was willing to go to the SLCC as my RL self with my SL avatar linked -- unlike Aimee Weber or even Weedy Herbst herself -- these facts were covered by the Herald." (Emphasis mine) HunsV (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because she is a prominent human rights activist and expert on the former Soviet Union, not because of her involvement with video games/virtual worlds. She has been an editor with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a major broadcaster, the Executive Director, a Program Director and the UN representative of the International League for Human Rights, and a research director with Human Rights Watch. She has translated a bunch of important books (like Boris Yeltsin, The Struggle for Russia) and published some herself. As far as her involvement with virtual worlds is concerned, it has been covered by Wired and the New York Times. See the article for sources. She's definitely not known for "one event", but as a prominent human rights activist over a period spanning three decades. Also, the claim to "anonymity" is nonsense, per this interview in the New York Times and this interview in Wired. Jasonobrian (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would being an editor with a radio station make someone notable? There are thousands of such people. There are TENS of thousands of people working with and for the UN - again, how is this notable? She translated some books - should everyone who works for Berlitz get a writeup? I simply do not see how any of this qualifies as encyclopedic content. The deletion debates contain plenty of DELETEs for things like middle schools, which - in the case of those that have been around for many decades, such as my own - are relevant in the lives of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. Yet, someone who has done things - good and wholesome things, certainly, but whom, like that middle school, doesn't stand out, because there are tons of examples of people who have done the exact same thing. Why would anyone who doesn't know her professionally or have an interest in griefing her in Second Life (read on...) find this information even remotely interesting? How is it useful to have any of it in an encyclopedia?

    Regarding anonymity, you really should read her blog. Whatever her motivations for giving these interviews, she seems to have ten gallons of vitriol for anyone who mentions her true identity and her Second Life identity in the same place, which should be perfectly obvious if you take a look at the blog entry I quoted. Now, just in case that wasn't enough evidence for you, take a look at this OTHER blog entry, which she made in February of this year:

    "Before all this, Pathfinder played an outrageous part in outing my RL identity on the forums [...] Pathfinder, that zealous keeper of forums decorum who would later hasten to ban me without due process, let posts outing my RL gender and promising to link to the rest of my RL information with only an email, were allowed to languish for days, with no action. Finally, they were lazily ellided, and a policy never enforced very belatedly articulated -- that if information is not on the First Life profile of the avatar in SL, it is not fair game for discussion in forums and inworld."

    And - if that isn't enough for you - she harbors abject hatred for Wikipedia, considering it akin to the Ministry of Truth, and would probably blow a fuse if she realized you put an article about her on this site, linking her real and virtual identities together, and providing a large quantity of heretofore unknown information about her to countless people who enjoy harassing her in Second Life? (Again, documented perfectly well in her blog.) You are really not doing Wikipedia a favor by posting this, and you are not doing her a favor, either. HunsV (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the one who contested prod. There are two things to consider -a) she seems to have received coverage because of her role in SL b) Many of her translations have received multiple reviews in Reliable Sources. IMO taken together, she qualifies for inclusion as a notable author, who has some coverage for other things. And regarding the privacy concern - as Jasnobrian points out, she has given interviews before in media and only those should be used to source her biographical details.--Sodabottle (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Regardless of what HunsV may argue upthread, a person's reaction to a wikipedia article is not a valid reason to contest it. There are a few very simple rules in play here. Let's see..

  • Notability: Check, check, and double check. I've seen articles with less with no issues.
  • Verifiability: Check. The valid sources seem to check out.
  • POV: Check. Looks neutral and factual to me.
  • Article structure: Could do with some cleaning up, (maybe some wikify-tag is in order), but cleaning up != deleting. This is going to become hot-button as hell in the next few hours/days. TheGreatTK (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of the article has posted about it on her blog. I strongly suggest locking the article down while this vote takes place (which I probably should not vote on, having tangled with her in the past in my own blogging capacity) as it *will* attract vandalism thanks to its current visibility. SJennings (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Eventually this could be merged as well but I'll go with a keep for now. Tone 15:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Grohl discography

[edit]
Dave Grohl discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another example of my being on the fence. While I would normally suggest merging this article to Dave Grohl, I don't think that would make sense because he has never recorded any albums as a solo artist. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Services Club

[edit]
Victory Services Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep I am changing my !vote. As a charitable institution (according to its website) the relevant notability criteria are found in WP:CLUB. In addition to the, admittedly terse, book references, I've come across two news sources: The Glasgow Herald and The Montreal Gazette which in my opinion (combined with a healthy dose of AGF in the history section of the web site) gets the article across the finishing line. Favonian (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence This organization seems like it ought to be notable: in existence since 1907, housed in a historic building (Connaught House), new wing was dedicated by Winston Churchill; but all this is according to their own website. I'll see if I can find anything more independent. --MelanieN (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, regretfully, after a search. It appears this is more of a place of public accommodation than an actual club. Clearly it is a well known place; there are many references to it in fiction, as a place where the hero meets someone or the traveler rests; but nothing that constitutes in-depth coverage about the club itself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its size and its premises, along with notable people who are associated with it, get it over the line. It clearly is a club that offers, as many do, accommodation for members. It is not just accommodation. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Deltron 3030. Shimeru (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deltron Event II

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Deltron Event II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Result of first nomination in 2008 was keep due to sources saying that the album would be out soon. But now, even after being in the works at least six years, there is still no confirmed release date. Most recent source in the article says release will be in "2010" but given the project's history that's not too believable and is not verifiable to the necessary level of detail. WP:CRYSTAL is still the overriding issue for this album as it s was in 2008. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - just learned that the article was also PROD'ded in July 2009 for the same reason and the PROD was removed by an editor, once again because sources said at the time that the album would be out "soon." It appears that nobody followed up on that PROD removal. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - I think the merge suggested by White 720 (plus a redirect) is a pretty good idea. Even though the album might never see the light of day, its production is probably a matter of historical interest for the supergroup project. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment from Nominator - I'm willing to accept merge/redirect as the "consensus" if nobody else comes along with a strong argument to delete. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research. Shimeru (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology (India)

[edit]
Centre for Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources in the article are limited at best and a group inside of an academic unit isn't generally notable. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research. No need for a separate article - I agree with the nom, this centre of excellence doesnt have enough coverage to have a separate article on its own. The information in this article should be added to the NIPER article.--Sodabottle (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence intended, but why should being "foreign" is a ground for deleting or merging any article? What countries are foreign and which countries are not?--Nilotpal42 16:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Towers

[edit]
Todd Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article is not notable. He does not meet the notability guidelines for academics or for creative professionals. Could possibly qualify as a vanity article. MidnightDesert (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Unanimous, Non-admin close  Chzz  ►  00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey show

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Donkey show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 19. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can people come to article that I have rewritten. The history section is being removed as "trivia" and after being restored, a quote from the Godfather was removed as being "unsourced" despite the source clearly there. Bring your own opinions to the talk page to develop consensus for removal or inclusion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As DGG said in the DRV it does not matter whether or not donkey shows are a real phenomenon, when there are WP:RS that use the term. Since there are WP:RS that use the term I regard this as an obvious keep. Geo Swan (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sometimes, despite my love for Wikipedia, I completely hate Wikipedia. This is one of those times. Keep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable urban legend, important in why US people decide to visit Mexico, appears both in a Godfather book and in a Kevin Smith film (which means that it has been famous in US pop culture for years, it's not a barely famous trivia item that gets forgotten in a few weeks), good secondary references (I added one more). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno Nuker

[edit]
Inferno Nuker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

House!

[edit]
House! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Giordano

[edit]
Jerry Giordano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arguably non-notable news anchor and realtor. Secondary coverage in Google News seems to reflect a DUI charge in 2008, there is no coverage that I can find of the disposition of that arrest. Joe Decker (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Carlos Gamarra

[edit]
Jean Carlos Gamarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources found to support notability. A Google search ("Jean Carlos Gamarra" -Wikipedia) returned 47 hits, of which none appeared to be reliable sources. Google Books and Google News searches returned no hits. I proposed this article for deletion on 18 May 2010 ("No sources found to support notability; external reference links provided in article have all expired"), but this was contested by Macpl on 26 May 2010 ("awards and titles support notability"). Janggeom (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine D. (Kitty) Kimball

[edit]
Catherine D. (Kitty) Kimball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination- I declined a BLP PROD for this article because a source is provided. How notable the individual is, I'm not sure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added some references to the article and formatted it a bit. Based on her current position and the positions she has held, notability seems to be established. SilverserenC 02:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Einherjer#Discography. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Borealis (MCD)

[edit]
Aurora Borealis (MCD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Comment - the EP started as a demo but later became an album, so the "assumed non-notable" argument from the nominator is illegitimate. This AfD could possibly be closed as "moot" for that very reason. Meanwhile, if someone thinks this album article should be deleted, then a proper nomination should be conducted with distinct arguments about notability or the lack thereof. With all that being said, the EP does not appear to have received significant coverage beyond discography sites and file-sharing sites, so the article could maybe be deleted for that reason. If someone did a proper nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can be recreated if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moda (association)

[edit]
Moda (association) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable. Velcro Christmas Tree (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. Merge is an option that may be discussed on the talk page. Shimeru (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Theatre

[edit]
Parker Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like McKenna Theatre, I can find no significant coverage of this small, college theatre building. Any gNews hits are unrelated or event listings. As with McKenna, the article also doesn't attempt to assert any notability, but no speedy criteria seems to quite fit for a building. » scoops “5x5„ 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Needs a whole bunch of quality tags: a coherent lead, wikification, and so on. Give broad leeway to public buildings, chances are the information will be useful to someone eventually. Carrite (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — under a google search for parker theatre new paltz there are 21,500 results for this locationDemetri Music™ 16:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzim78 (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep [30] provides a bit of detail. The primary sources provide plenty. Eh, I really really suspect someone has written a book about the school and a theater that sees as much use (and has the history this one does) likely has enough coverage. But I can't find it. Hobit (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I object to the proposer of the AfD debating the comments about the proposal which are not to his liking. Make your nomination, state your case, and let the chips fall where they may, please. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kimber Sissons

[edit]
Kimber Sissons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ah models..... how to know if they are notable when your head is spinning with their loveliness.... UtherSRG (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remember what she looks like and I'm not going to look. That way it won't cloud my judgement. =) Henrymrx (t·c) 15:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sika redem

[edit]
Sika redem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tagged it a few days ago as CSD but was declined today by Bubba hotep because "there is some credible claim of notability". However a gSearch for "Sika Redem" failed to show reliable sources except for band listings and a few passing mentions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Tardieu

[edit]
Michel Tardieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article comprehensively fails to explain why this person is notable. The individual seems to be "notable" solely for formulating a theory which has "remained far from securing unanimous adhesion" (weasel-words for crank theory). In context, this looks rather like a WP:COATRACK on which to hang ridicule of this theory. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This scholar and his theory are not notable due to a lack of sufficient coverage in the media and in scholary peer reviewed journals. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry, I failed to explain my reasoning above. The French Wikipedia article (Google translation) says he was directeur d'études (1976-91) at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes — to quote our article, "Many of France's greatest scientists in Humanities were professors ("Directeurs d'études") there" — then Chair Professor (1991-2008) at College de France — again quoting our article "the professors are chosen from among the foremost researchers of the day, with no requirement other than that of being at the top of their fields". I reckon both those fulfil WP:ACADEMIC criterion #5 (in spirit if not in letter as WP:ACADEMIC doesn't always entirely comply with WP:WORLDVIEW at present IMHO). In 1975 he won a Bronze Medal of the CNRS — to quote translation of french WP article, "awarded annually to forty winners (one per section of specialties). It «rewards the first work of a scientist , which makes him an expert talent in his field. This award is an encouragement of the CNRS to pursue research already well underway and fruitful»". I think that meets WP:ACADEMIC #2. —Qwfp (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the creator of the article Clive sweeting (talk · contribs) has no contributions since the recreation of the article following the review of its speedy deletion (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 10). I've wikified the article a bit but i'm afraid i don't have time right now to incorporate the above material into the article (and i'm reluctant to take the time while there's still a risk my work may be deleted). —Qwfp (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted by Qwfp, Collège de France selection implies peer-selected notability. I've also added some biographical references to the article from their website, and listed his book translated into English and published by University of Illinois Press last year. AllyD (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The CdF selection goes some way towards WP:PROF #3 or possibly WP:PROF #5 (I'm not familiar enough with the French academic system to tell which) and he also has some mainstream media coverage for his theories [31] [32]. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The second keep !vote was based on the lack of a rationale. The nominator later provided one. That leaves one keep !vote. Epastore makes a good argument but unfortunately, one !vote is not a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ExploreLearning

[edit]
ExploreLearning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally tagged with db-corp, but the speedy was contested. Elevating to AFD. with no opinion. delete so a discussion will be had. UtherSRG (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep (from original author) – As noted in my objection to speedy deletion, this company is notable. Click on the scholar link above to see what impact they are having in academic circles. They are also very, very well recognized in educational circles, where they have been nominated for and won numerous awards (now noted in the article). This company doesn't appear much in regular Google searches or in top-line publications, but it still appears to be notable and worthy of inclusion in a 3+ million-article encyclopedia. This stub should be allowed to grow, as has that of a somewhat analogous company, BrainPOP. — Epastore (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. No prejudice to recreation with sources. Shimeru (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Plunkett

[edit]
Gerard Plunkett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability questioned but speedy declined, elevating to AFD with no opinion. UtherSRG (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a piss-poor article, but I immediately recognized the name - anyone who watches sci-fi TV will probably have seen him in several different shows. (He also had a small role in Snakes on a Plane.) Before deleting, it would be a good idea to find if reliable third-party sources exist. *** Crotalus *** 18:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This actor lacks notability since there no listed references for him. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's really a poor argument. Notability is determined by whether references are available, not whether they're currently listed in the article. Still, I'm not sure if this guy does have independent references available: I don't see anything really good right now. Buddy431 (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Universities Comparative Study

[edit]
Mexican Universities Comparative Study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be describing a study (WP:OR) that is not notable, and it appears (given the links in the article) that the author is using this article to call attention to this original research. No third-party resources found, completely lacks WP:NOTABILITY, obvious WP:COI. If you'd like to see speedy criteria for essays, join the discussion. — Timneu22 · talk 13:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami

[edit]
Bhakti Vidya Purna Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD previously Proded BLP. Not notable and no sources to comply with the policy. Wikidas© 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Gunewardene

[edit]
Ajit Gunewardene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested, elevating to AFD as the subject does not seem notable, despite author's protestations. delete UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong deletebeing a business people or managing directer is not notable.Those positions will be change by subject to subject. if it is, why don't we give permission to create pages all business man in all over the world. I strongly proposed to delete this article under G11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipeouting (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, "usefulness" or lack thereof is not one of the valid reasons to keep or delete an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to At_That_Point#Recorded_songs. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Sponsor (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NSONGS notability goes beyond simply charting. The song has not recieved extensive coverage and serves no purpose as essentially it only gives up two pieces of information: release date and chart position. it could easily be merged to the album especially considering it is unlikely to grow in size. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. In a perfect world, an article would exist about the crash and this title would be redirected there, but as it is, there is no such article and the consensus here is leaning towards keep and there are high quality sources in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Herfkens

[edit]
Annette Herfkens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

db-person disputed. I disagree that she is notable. Others may disagree, so listing it here for discussion. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above person is of no more notability in a similar circumstance. Additionally incident is included at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_Vietnam_Airlines --Blankitosway (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. This AfD has now been open for nearly 17 days, during which time there has been a lot of "if it's sourced..." and similar arguments in favour of keeping it, but no reliable sources have been added to the article and no sourced were provided in the course of the discussion which covered the subject in sufficient detail (ie more than just a passing mention) for them to be considered notable and the article is a newly-created, unsourced BLP so procedurally, the removal BLP PROD should have been reverted, had that happened, the article would long since have been deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remco pardoel

[edit]
Remco pardoel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced - contested BLPPROD without adding references. GregJackP (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if reliable sources can be found to support the article's claims (European championships, international championships, etc.). On a cursory search, I found [35], [36], [37], [38], and [39], but most of these appear to have only passing references to the subject. Janggeom (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gerardo Yepiz. Redirecting on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acamonchi

[edit]
Acamonchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a dictionary. GregJackP (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torn Between Two Worlds

[edit]
Torn Between Two Worlds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six Song Demo

[edit]
Six Song Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadini Premadasa

[edit]
Nadini Premadasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are lots of singers in Sri Lanka .There is no any importance to create an article about this person. She has participated to superstar program on TV channel few years ago. But it is not an issue for create an Article on worldwide encyclopedia describing her personal descriptions. Proposed to strongly delete Wipeouting (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are more than 10 reality programs are running on most of TV channels in Sri Lanka. Approximately 12 people are selected for the final round. As an example you can see page of Sirasa SuperstarSirasa Dancing Stars. I am asking, what is the logic give web space for all award winners or nominated candidate from this kind of programs. At the moment any one can be someone using media publicity or creating Articles themselves. If Wikipedia is a Platform for create blogs for community, should give space for exist this kind of personal promotions.Wipeouting (talk) 05:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, more than 10 reality shows? I can remember only 4 or 5 "superstar shows" broadcasted ever in my country. Sri Lankans apparently enjoy this kind of entertainment more than Czechs. Anyway, I'm talking about redirecting the article, not about creating blogs for community. But I see your point, I too don't like the insignificant superstars :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Although Google is from infallible, a grand total of 3 Ghits, of which 2 are Wikipedia, is hardly indiciative of notability. During the course of this AfD, there appears to have been a fair bit of arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, but no addition of sources to prove the notability of the term or the concept. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Workout delayed reimbursement of advances

[edit]
Workout delayed reimbursement of advances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NOT#DICDEF article has almost no sources and the term is only referred to in a single report. βcommand 22:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • additional comment for further deletion, I googled] the article title and got a total of three hits. One and Two being wp's article and the redirect to it. the third is one of the two sources listed in the article. βcommand 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term / concept is not notable. It is not in most financial dictionaries / acronym lists. There are vanishingly few web its for it, no Google News archive hits for it, and no Google Books hits for it. Neither that it is mentioned in one technical article, nor that it is a term in possibly a huge number of actual mortgage loans demonstrates its notability. Bongomatic 05:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they're not infallible. However, the way to demonstrate that they're wrong isn't to say that they're not always right—it's to demonstrate that something that doesn't show up with the standard searches is given significant coverage despite that. The suggestion that a concept / practice of this vintage isn't representatively covered in sources indexed by search engines is odd. In fact, for recent phenomena, Google is likely to overstate, rather than understate, the coverage. Bongomatic 23:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanka Dineth

[edit]
Sanka Dineth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.