Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 10#Emily Springfield

< 9 February	11 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 02:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy King Memorial Scholarship

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

Non-notable scholarship Delete Secret ^account 23:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, seems to lack reliable sourcing. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 02:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nitish Chandra

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

Non-notable individual. References provided are subject's own site. Google returns blogs, Facebook and LinkedIn pages only. No news items. Content is mostly promotional, not biographical. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He may be an up and coming designer. Aside from the blogs noted by the nomiantor, he is mentioned here, and is identified as the designer for one of the pieces of attire worn by a celebrity. However, with no significant coverage, this does not meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article's subject doesn't have enough coverage in any major media, fails criterion of WP:BIO. Bill william compton (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discrete frequency

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

Nothing in this article is correct. The definition of the topic is nonsense, probably just misparsed from the sentence "Since the DFT provides a discrete frequency representation of a finite-duration sequence" which is the only mention of this word pair in the only cited source. All the content is represented correctly already in other articles. Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no concept known as "discrete frequency". --Lambiam 00:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there is, the term is used to distinguish between a single frequency and a number of frequencies. For exampe an oscilloscope can be used at a discrete frequency or swept through them. I'm not going to pretend this link is easy to read, it is just the first I came across. [1] Szzuk (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to be more specific when you say "definitions and factoids in this article are just wrong, apparently just made up" or call it "nonsense". I am the original author of the article, so it might sound like I'm challenging you. But I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you find nothing of interest here, whatsoever. Given that you are an engineer in the Valley (I saw that on your page), the article might be really elementary to you. But that's what its point was, when I created it. The title is a little dubious though, I'll agree. --Tt801 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's hard to make a right article when the title doesn't mean anything, or doesn't mean what you think it is that you're writing about. It's not elementary, because it doesn't say much that's true. I attached "dubious" tags to the most obviously wrong bits. Read sampling rate and discrete-time signal and sampling theorem and such, and tell us what you meant to write about that's not already covered in one of those. And note that the sampling theorem does not have a converse to tell you what sampling rate is required (it is not true that "the sampling frequency has to be at the least double of the highest frequency of the input signal"; read what it does say, realize that it doesn't have a converse, and maybe you'll learn something insightful). Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sampling theorem does say that you require at least double the highest frequency to represent it completely, I don't know how else to put forth this simple fact to you. What I wrote was not a converse of the theorem, it IS the theorem. Let us take one of the "dubious" points: how is the fact that

-\pi \leq \omega \leq \pi

contains all discrete frequencies, dubious? I'd like to direct your attention to frequency warping that occurs via BLT, e.g. or the aliasing that occurs due to impulse invariance transformation. This interval contains all frequencies in the sense, that once multiplied with the sampling frequency, it yields the "original analog" frequency axis back, without loss of information (provided of course you had initially satisfied Nyquist's criterion).--Tt801 (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you didn't read the article. The sampling theorem provides only a sufficient condition for perfect reconstruction, not a necessary condition. It doesn't say you can't sample a signal with a sampling rate that's less than twice the highest frequency present; it doesn't even tell you, or imply, that you'll have aliasing problems if you do. This is discussed in the article, including fields that use counterexamples to such converses. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Discrete signal. Nothing worth merging, but possible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users searching with this term are more likely searching for "discrete frequency noise" (DFN), noise that manifests as a combination of whistle tones, or for "discrete-frequency Wigner distribution", a variant of the Wigner quasi-probability distribution in which the frequency domain is discretized. It is not clear to me that their interests are best served by the recommended redirect. --Lambiam 22:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I suppose it could be turned into a disambiguation page. Or a redirect to Wigner quasi-probability distribution is good too. The bulk of my comment stands though; there isn't really anything in this article that could be usefully merged anywhere, but it is a possible search term. Therefore, we should have something here instead of simply deleting the article. -Atmoz (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Wigner quasi-probability distribution (or linking to there from a disambiguation page) is totally unhelpful if the target page does not even use the word "discrete" – which it doesn't and is not likely to do anytime soon, as this is a quite arcane corner of a rather specialized topic. --Lambiam 20:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand by what logic you conclude it's a "possible search term" any more than any other random bigram would be. Is it a "useful" search term? Seems unlikely to me. Dicklyon (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's useful is dependent upon each specific user. In January, the page has ~1400 page views. There are limited internal links to this article, so it seems likely that at least some are searching for it (either internally or through Google). Redirect are cheap. Disamb pages are cheap. If a user naively searches for "discrete frequency", I think it's in our best interest as a reference source to usher them to information that may be related to what they are searching for. By deleting the page and leaving nothing behind to help them, we're basically saying they are too stupid to be trying to use Wikipedia. And that's not acceptable to me. -Atmoz (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many possible search terms that have no page: Flexible rotor, Repeated substring, Burnt red bean, Centralized decision, and so on ad infinitum. If this is really unacceptable to you, you have a lot of work ahead. While redirects and disambiguations pages are cheap, they need a plausible target to refer the reader to, something that is missing in this case. --Lambiam 20:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content is seriously confused and I can see no way to salvage it. At the very least it should be pointed out that discrete frequencies arise from a signal which repeats in time not from a discretely time-sampled signal. I don't know of a page which makes this clear, so I do not think that a redirect would help. The search engine is at least as likely to point a user to a useful page as is a redirect. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a physicist I'm confident it is a notable topic. However this article is awful, it should be left and tagged to await an expert or returned to a stub while someone who knows what they are talking about comes along to rewrite it. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have simplified lead section and added a real world reference for their use in oscilloscopes. Also added expert tag. Szzuk (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The experts have weighted in already, and "a discrete frequency domain spectrum" is not evidence that the bigram "discrete frequency" means anything. This is just "discrete" modifying "frequency-domain spectrum", with the hyphen missing. Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the experts? You? I'd say your opinion was the problem. Perhaps you should write wp all by yourself. Szzuk (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no personal attacks. An article on discrete frequencies doesn't make sense. It is impossible to fill in the dots in a sentence of the form "In digital signal processing, a discrete frequency is defined as ..." while at the same time making this statement verifiable by citing reliable sources. It is not a coincidence that none of the sources you give contains anything remotely resembling the nonsensical definition in the article. It is meaningless to say: "this frequency is discrete, but this one isn't". In the phrase "discrete frequency domain", that which is discrete is the frequency domain, and not the frequencies constituing the domain. What we have here is like an article on "Homemade chicken" as being an ingredient of homemade chicken soup. --Lambiam 23:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am indeed one of several with DSP expertise who have said that there's no topic here, just an extracted word pair. My point is simply that calling for experts is going to get me or someone like me to say that again. It is not my point to try to rely on credentials in my arguments, as I believe credentials are irrelevant on wikipedia, but when you call for an expert, you get what you get. I'd be happy to hear from others. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling books from my bookcase, none of the following have an entry for "discrete frequency" in the index:

"Digital Signal Processing" Oppenheim and Schafer

"Time Series" Norbert Weiner

"Digital Signal Processing" Rabiner and Gold

"Reference Data for Radio Engineers"

"Time Series Analysis" Box and Jenkins

"Measurement of Power Spectra" Blackman

"Acoustical Measurements" Beranek

"Theory of Hearing" Wever

"Digital and Kalman Filtering" Bozic

"Acoustics" Beranek

and a few others.

If this phrase were notable it would be at least be mentioned in an index in one of these books. The phrase is very clearly not notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TJ Armstrong

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

Contested biography of a living person proposed deletion. I tried to explain on the talk page what the problem was, some more links were added and the prod removed. I don't believe any of the sources being used qualify as reliable sources independent from the subject. A guitar shop website is not a reliable source. A bands own official site or Facebook page is not an independent source. The official page of a company who is paying him to do a job is not an independent source. My own search did not turn up anything any better. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to After Midnight Project as a former member of the band. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atmoz (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Coverage on After Midnight project is very thin about why this person is notable (other than having being with the group). If no there are no independent 3rd party reliable sources (someone talking about him and the bands), we can't accept this as a article.

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyvio JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Russo

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

This page cites notability, however, uses a self created source which is of questionable reliability, advertising this very page. Article was deleted before when the subject himself created it. Phearson (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article is a copy and past copyright violation of the producers own page here. (Tagged as such). Additionally seems to be a major COI as the creator was User:Thomrusso. Ravendrop 21:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. hoax DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ace

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

The only use of the term "acetomorpian" to be found on the internet is this article. The only use of the term "crystal ace" as an illegal or abused substance is this article. I suspect a hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, I don't think this is a hoax per say, but rather something made up one day. Regarding acetomorpian, I strongly believe this is a misspelling of acetaminophen, which redirects to the Paracetamol article (also referenced in crystal ace). Second, the account obviously has WP:COI given it is the same name as the article (and I am guessing the person who "discovered" this drug combination). Finally, the account that created the article is WP:SPA. Given the zero sources for use of this street name, I think that at this time, this new street drug is not notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "acetomorpian" is a pretty unlikely misspelling for "acetaminophen". However, in the very unlikely event that it is such a mis-spelling then the article is a hoax, since acetaminophen is a synonym of paracetamol, while the article describes a drug with very different properties from paracetamol. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it was 'created in early 2011' it cannot possibly have gained any notability yet as evidenced by the lack of citations.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a hoax, and certainly not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3 (hoax). No possibility this is factual.Novangelis (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Taylor Swift discography. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Taylor Swift

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

I think the Taylor Swift discography article covers this stuff. A previous discussion was closed as redirect, but the article has since been recreated and modified under this different name. I figured I'd open this for discussion again rather than redirecting it. Also see the discussion at the article's talk page. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete, technically a G4 speedy, although equally technically a redirect request doesn't belong at AfD either. In any event, pointless duplication page that's clearly against consensus opinion given the last AfD. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list simply duplicates what already exists in the discography. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete, I'll have to remember that trick "List of N by Y" and "List of Y N" is a great way to make sure all possible combinations are enumerated. Hasteur (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything relevant per nom. (note that if there's nothing new to merge, that is essentially a redirect). Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect: There's no need for this article in addition to a discography -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Same fate as List of Taylor Swift songs, best choice out there. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 11:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect: This is already covered by the discography article, and the discography article is the better-written of the two (e.g., it has a well-developed lead, citations and chart positions). --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inspection 12

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

Prodded back in September but contested after deletion. Still not convinced that they meet WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete doesn't appear to claim anything that satisfies WP:BAND and no citations either.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criteria 1 and 5 at WP:BAND are fulfilled

1. "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/inspection_12/artist.jhtml http://www.allmusic.com/artist/inspection-12-p480906

5. "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." One album released on Fat Wreck Chords subsidiary Honest Don's, and one on Suburban Home Records & Takeover.

Also 6. "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Only one of the bandmembers, Peter Mosely is noteworthy enough to have his own article. Not enough to fullfill the criteria, but I just thought I'd drop this here as well. --Kaysow (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #1, you do realize that the VH1 link is a mirror of Allmusic, right? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, don't ask me why everyone's using the same bio, but I don't think it' such a terrible thing. It's also featured on iTunes, MTV, AOL, Yahoo, MSN and Starpulse. Anyway, here's two good ones - http://www.punknews.org/review/404 http://www.punknews.org/review/6328 and also, the Honest Don's album is featured on the Fat Wreck store http://www.fatwreck.com/store/band/77 --Kaysow (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is coverage in The Florida Times-Union; a few examples include this, this, and this. Sure, it's local coverage, but it's significant and extensive over many years. Along with the Allmusic biography, it's enough for WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those three cites are pretty good for WP:BAND #1 and I'm minded to move to keep. All three are in the same local paper though, which is a bit thin. What coverage was there in the Florida Times-Union? Is it a similar piece to those or a passing mention of gig dates?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those three citations are from the Florida Times-Union, which publishes in Jacksonville. Those are just three I picked out of a large number of articles from that paper over the years: see here for the full results. Some of them note that the band received "national attention", and I guess the Allmusic biography and the review in Allmusic provide some additional evidence of that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, lots of cites from the Florida Times Union, which seems a reasonably large paper. Marginal though as it's all from the same local paper, would be better with a variety of sources. Will give the benefit of the doubt though.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just notable per WP:Music have albums on notable indie labels, passed muster for AMG (albeit not a great feat), other secondary sources are local in nature but they do exist. Seems enough overall. A1octopus (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Keep, Very strong resume. The Musicians have been in multiple bands signed to major records labels along with major indie lables. They we're signed to Honest Don's which was a respectable indie label. Newspaper articles also indicate a major local band that has garnished some national attention.Foley227 (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Corporation

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

pure unadulterated spam with no redeeming qualities WuhWuzDat 19:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Major Rewrite. Plenty of implied notability and some independent third party coverage. However, in it's current form, I agree with nom. Unless there is a major rewrite (which I may take on this week), it should be deleted. At the very least, all promotional and non encyclopedic information should be removed and it should be stubbed.--v/r - T P 19:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: per removal of spammy content, addition of sources, and change in tone.--v/r - T P 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete - blatantly spammy with the usual blather about "solutions" and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous AfD here.--v/r - T P 20:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. As it stands article is horible, however, a G-News search throws up lots of stuff which makes the company look to be plenty notable, so I'm disinclined to lose the page altogether. Maybe it should just be slashed back to a stub and then policed so only NPOV encyclopaedic edits are let through in the future rather than what looks to be cut and paste corporate bio spam.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if stubbified - response - the article dates back to 2004; possibly there's a toy pony under the dungpile, if we stubbify it harshly enough. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - follow-up - I stubbified it pretty briskly, and now am getting e-mails from the role account person who had done the COI edits, saying that the article is incorrect and should be deleted (but not telling me what's incorrect).
    - I've thrown a citation in there to give some credibillity to the article. It's not great, being a report on their financial returns and therefore a bit primary, but it establishes they exist. It also lists their business as a lot more general than just CRM, so I've changed the wording to reflect.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. If the original author claims that a neutral version should be deleted, and that to be correct the article must read like an advertisement, I'd be inclined to accept that as a request for deletion from the originating editor.

The current version of the article describes this as a provider of outsourced services, including customer relationship management (CRM) services, conference call services, privatized 911 service, automated business telephone systems, systems integration, help desks, business-to-business sales, responses to advertisements, and debt collection. They may be quite a large firm doing this. But a business of this sort just isn't likely to have verifiably had significant effects on history, culture, or technology. I didn't find anything other than routine business page and press-release driven coverage on the first several pages of Google News results once I tried to winnow the search terms to filter out the many false positives. "West Teleservices" is slightly better, but the closest it comes to historic significance is an offhand reference that they've been placing political junk calls. As far as I can see this one ain't for the history books. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTED is appropriate here.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did a little research with the aim of finding new sources to expand the article. I added one other third-party reference and I found some West subsidiaries and corporate acquisitions, at least two of which had separate Wikipedia articles (and at least one of which was a publicly traded company before being acquired by West). I figure that the fact that I had never heard of this company is mostly a result of its using a plain-vanilla name; it seems to be a very large business operating with a lot of other brand names. It looks to me like a WP:notable business, and the stubbification of the article has resolved the WP:SOAP issues that seem to have inspired this AfD. --Orlady (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abotchie

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

Unsourced and no evidence of any notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; original research. JNW (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no citations and no realistic prospect of them appearing as any sort of search just brings back people with that name.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced, not proving to be notable at all, and possibly original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet -- œ ^™ 15:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emrie Brooke Foster

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

Few if any reliable sources supporting notability. JNW (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:ARTIST and no decent citations either on the article or in google.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources and notability, WP:ARTIST. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 21:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bucharest Medical Students' Society (SSMB)

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

No independent sources confirm the notability of this entity through in-depth coverage.

Footnote 1 is a mere directory listing at an umbrella organisation of which the society is a part.
Footnote 2 is a link to a page on the society's own website.
Footnote 3 links to a page on the site of the university associated with the society. Not only is this of dubious independence, it is also a bare passing mention.

Also notable is this message, where the article creator (who, of course, has made no other contributions to Wikipedia) says: "This page was created in order for the students that come from abroad for our exchange programs to have a little background. It is also useful in our interaction with National and International Officers and Directors of the International Federation of Medical Students' Association and European Medical Students' Association." Worthy goals both, but it is not our purpose to help exchange students, nor to help the society interact with other bodies. Those may be incidental benefits of having an article, but the prerequisite is in-depth coverage in independent sources.

I would not object to having this mentioned at Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, but a separate article is not warranted, given the scarcity of sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, quite a collection here. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG, lack of reliable sources and the talk page comment shows promotion and COI (tagged as such)--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenia Filotti Atanasiu

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

No sources appear to cover this individual to any degree of depth. Thus, the subject fails WP:N. Also, let us note that this is part of a wider pattern of cruft on the Filotti family: see this discussion and this one for more details. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, per nom...Modernist (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 20:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Ogilvie

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

Although on the face of this the article is well referenced, none of the references nor the content of the article assert why the subject is notable. Wikipedia is not a place for documenting one's family tree as the article's author seems to be trying to do with this and William Paton Ogilvie (which is also AfD nominated) Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete At least the author provided a lot of references this time. However, I have to agree with Bob: The references may back up the factual content, but do not establish notability. I think just about anyone working in a scientific field could generate such an article about themselves even if less than 100 people knew about them. The closest this subject gets to notability is "first plant pathologist of Bermuda" but even then, it's quite a stretch. Can we get an article about the first Sanitation Technician of Zimbabwe? You know, the dude who cleans Mugabe's toilets? As Bob said, notability hasn not been proven, so I'm going with Delete. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is room for these types of articles - he seems to have achieved a lot. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 13:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the nomination, notability is asserted: "he was the leading British expert[9] on the diseases of cereal crops and vegetables." Ref [9] is the Forward to his book so its independence may be questionable, but I've also found the following review of the book in Nature that confirms that he was certainly a leading expert, if not the leading expert:

"This is the second edition of the now well-known bulletin on diseases of vegetables written by Mr L. Ogilvie, advisory mycologist for the Ministry of Agriculture's western province... Among the expert mycologists comprising the Ministry's team of advisers, no one is more fitted than Mr Ogilvie to write this bulletin... Long years of experience coupled with his considerable number of investigations into many diseases of vegetables have given Mr. Ogilvie such knowledge of the problems which arise in the successful cultivation of vegetables as to render his advice extremely valuable to growers of these crops. ... It is an extremely well set up publication which every grower of vegetable crops ought to have. The information it contains is written by an expert..."

D. E. G. (1945). "Diseases of Vegetables". Nature. 155 (3947): 743. Bibcode:1945Natur.155..743D. doi:10.1038/155743a0. --Qwfp (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two major benefits to the world of Lawrence Ogilvie were:

1. His saving the economy of Bermuda in the 1920s (when agriculture, and particularly the export of lilies to the USA) was the major industry -- long before significant tourism became the major Bermuda industry.

2. The UK if not European expert on the diseases of vegetables and wheat -- vital during WW2 years.Duncanogi (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Few cites in GS for work in obscure field done before Web2.0. but notable for applications of his work and regarded as an authority. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Never mind Web 2.0, his work predates Web 0.2 ... Qwfp (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career accomplishment to merit inclusion. Nicely done page. Ignore All Rules = Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with nom about documenting one's entire family tree. However, nominating the entire family tree for deletion is equally flawed. This is the one to keep. Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oustanding scientist, well referenced, and notable for the reasons given by Qwfp. (Note to article author: the lead should be expanded to include why he is interesting and notable, and—eventually—to comply with WP:LEDE). --NSH001 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Nature review clearly establishes notability , in exactly the terms of WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reference NSH001's Note to author. I heartily agree with your comment. My IBM employer for 30 years always required a succinct management summary. I wrote one for this article but it was deleated by someone. Wikipedia needs "management" summaries for all articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.29.36 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Paton Ogilvie

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

Minor cleric. Only one reference and no indication within the article of the subject's notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to document their family tree as the article's author seems to be attempting with this and Lawrence Ogilvie, which is also AfD nominated. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 18:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Any clergyman could generate the same article. Notability is not shown. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Member of the Scottish Synod (the ruling council of the church) with specified duties. Being low-church Presbyterian, there were and are no titles such as bishop that exist in other sects of the church: but the individuals still had national (Scottish) responsibilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanogi (talk • contribs)
Delete. No claim of notability. I don't think 'Scottish Synod examiner' necessarily implies he was on the Synod, merely that he was appointed by the Synod to conduct examinations. Qwfp (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the face of it, a run-of-the-mill biography without any particular assertion of notability. If references can be provided to show that he passes WP:BIO, I'll change my mind. Robofish (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had he been a member of the Scottish Synod he would be notable, but there is no evidence of it, & I do not see that the statement that he was an examiner for it gives that implication. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Synods don't appoint people to conduct examinations unless they're members of Synod; however, being a member of Synod doesn't mean anything for notability for two reasons: (1) The highest court of the Church of Scotland is the General Assembly, and (2) Any member of a presbytery is eligible to be elected as a delegate to General Assembly, and new delegates are chosen every year; it's a temporary position that wouldn't attract any coverage, and delegates to General Assembly are not members of an oligarchy — this is not at all comparable to the Holy Synod in various Orthodox churches. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was The result was speedy delete (G12: Blatant advertising) by Orangemike (talk · contribs)

Software epigene

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

Essay. Steaming pile of WP:OR Probable pseudo science, masquerading as fact. WuhWuzDat 18:29, 10 February 2011 (U

its not science, is brand new technology inspired by recent developments in science. It has been applied to business problems with great success and wanted to share it with everyone (check epibuzzz.com). for more info pls contact me at t@epibuzzz.com.

Delete This article seems to be the only mention of the phrase "software epigene" anywhere on the internet. To be sure, epigenetics is a valid avenue of scientific exploration, but I'm pretty sure no one has yet found a way to have software alter our genetic structure or genetic expression (even temporarily) in the way this article suggests. It's a nice "wouldn't it be cool if we could do this" thought project, but it's not a reality. The single reference provided speaks of the known type of epigenetics, not this current topic, and the concept of a software epigene is a huge leap from the concepts discussed in Shenk's book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this article largely nonsense and completely unsourced, but it is also promotion of a concept. Could well be speedy-deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jhon Pírez

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

fails WP:NSPORTS - no evidence as yet he satisfies notability by playing professionally for a first team in a competitive competition Zanoni (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He fails WP:GNG, and he is yet to make an appearance for a fully pro team, thus failing WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he seems to fail WP:GNG as a non-notable footballer, haven't played in professional teams yet. WP:NSPORT, as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 11:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't played a match in a professional league. Can be recreated if he becomes notable in the future, but he clearly isn't at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5) – creation by a sock of a banned user. –MuZemike 23:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zsolt Pölöskei

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

No evidence that this player has played professional football to satisfy requirements of WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Information on Liverpool appearances incorrect. Cannot find evidence of him at MTK at present on their official website, no sources for loan move to Gyori. Details included on appearances and quotes as not sourced Zanoni (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - His Liverpool stats are false as he never made an appearance. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if no source corroborates him turning out for MTK that those statistics are also false and that he has n fact never played professional football.--Echetus Xe 19:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The MTK stats are false too (see [2]). No evidence this article passes any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, although I'll userfy at request. Ironholds (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who's There? (film)

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

Contested prod. Article about an unreleased low budget short film directed by an unknown who's only previously directed two ~~one minute~~ shorts and starring a cast of unknown actors. No evidence of notability whatever. Fails WP:GNG and of course WP:NOTFILM in particular andy (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per andy Johnclean184 (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The fact that you are not familiar with Pau Masó, doesn't make him less of an actor. He's in a film festival and he stars in a theatrical movie. He didn't direct two one minute shorts, do your research, the short is called one minute, it doesn't run for one minute! He's worked in numerous Music Videos aside from his modeling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Dee Ford (talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. According to IMDB "One Minute" lasts four minutes and his other short is just... short. OK, I know that's how Ridley Scott began but in the beginning he wasn't notable either. Anyway, this AfD is about the film which is utterly not notable. andy (talk)

Delete – Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Oh, is 300.000 not enough? Can you keep it like this until the article on the AP comes out next week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Dee Ford (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Only 51 when using ' "Who's There?" and "Pau Masó" ' as the search criteria. AfD's typically last 7 days. BTW - a single AP article will probably not support notability. ttonyb (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it won't only be AP, but also the Washington Post, NY Times among many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Dee Ford (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent short films from Spain have a dificult time showing notability when compared to their big studio-backed brethren made in the USA. So perhaps, as the coverage is "pending", the article is simply premature? I am sure if deleted, the closer would gladly userfy the article to you so it can be further sourced, and if he agrees that it has then been significantly improved, the closer might be just as happy to help you get it returned to mainspace... and I would be happy to assist you in the article's formatting and style. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI a search on Spanish Google for the director's name gives very few hits and nothing that looks like a reliable source. The article doesn't give any hint of, for example, awards or general critical acclaim for the director and without that a film that hasn't even been released will simply not be able to attain notability whatever the language. andy (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I am not calling for a keep, and Wikipedia recognizes that not all sources are online... so letting the author continue work on the article in his userspace will remove the article from mainspace, allow him to seek and add whatever hardcopy sources may be available, and help him develop his editing skills. The article might never merit mainspace... but so what? In his userspace he can LEARN. I do not see that as a problem. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment-I'm lost. So If I add content that the moderatos want to remove, that's okay. But If I want to remove the content I created myself, that's a reason for blocking? I'm not joking with you or anything, I just want to understand. You know, I just thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia to find all sorts of content, relevant or irrelevant, as long as they were out there. At the end of the day, the movie Who's There? is a movie and I just wanted to made it available for people to find, that's all. IMDb is a perfectly reliable source, but if my article violates the wikipedia guidelines, then my mistake, I was wrong by doing that. Just so you know, I also created an article for San Francisco 2177 which it's costs goes up to 3 million dollars and it's going to be removed as well. Not all movies cost 150 million dollars to make. There's plenty of examples of movies that were very cheap to make and made a lot of money. But again, my content isn't relevant I get it. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.92.213 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity: you removed all content from this page apart from your own comments. I warned you not to do it again, which is fair enough. San Francisco 2177 (film) will only be removed if it fails to meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, which seems very likely. You can prevent this by adding reliable sources which prove notability, as you can with the article that's the subject of this debate. andy (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I want to make something clear. When I started to create this article and I pressed save, I didn't know it would be published. My idea was to create it day by day until the date the press release came out and then when all the info was confirmed and different sources mentioned the movie, then made it available. But I guess I don't know how to get around this site just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.92.213 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Yup, this place has a steep learning curve alright, and can be quite confusing to the uninitiated. And there are no "moderators"... only volunteer editors like yourself... simply with more experience. A new editor might better create a new article in a user space, where it can be polished and made suitable... and where he can also ask for input and assistance form pother editors without having to worry about someone hitting the delete button. You can create one as easily as clicking the redlink User:Hansen Dee Ford/workspace/new artticle and adding some content. Check out WP:Userspace and WP:Sandbox. Many Wikipedians are quite willing to assist newcomers. And check out my in-process essay at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines... in a "userspace"... it could help. A brand new mainspace article, specially by an inexperienced editor, comes under tight scrutiny from other volunteers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- You should hold on to this article. The NY Times will do an article about the movie soon, on their website.
We do not hold something in mainspace simply because coverage may be "imminent". Ask the closer to userfy it for you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article can always be recreated if sufficient support is generated subsequent to deletion. ttonyb (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a recreation of deleted content is always possible, but as the author asserts the coverage is pending, why not let it be worked on out of mainspace? If it gets the coverage, then it might be back. If it does not, it won't. In either instance, allowing an editor to work in a userspace is an option that untimately improves the editor's skills and thus the project itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Absolutely, I agree that a userspace move would be appropriate. ttonyb (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No real reason to delete, the topic is relevant and all the issues can be fixed through editing. Tone 22:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prekmurje dialect

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

The article it has no sense, scores grammatical blooper, the text is fully unintelligible, users on end query the sources, are not suitable sources. Doncsecz^talk 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The nominator appears to be engaged in an edit war regarding an established and extensively cited article. AfD is not an appropriate venue for content, inclusion, or redirect issues. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion respect to the quality and lucidity. Article's foreword is correct but other text is discursive and mindless. Doncsecz^talk 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Languages of this size and with the vast sources available are inherently notable. The main issue seems to be over the name of the article, which is better off handled elsewhere. Additionally, "quality and lucidity" are not valid reasons for deletion, and these issues can be dealt with elsewhere. Ravendrop 21:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I presume that the article's nomination is not related to the name of the article, as Doncsezc agreed to the renaming on my talk page.[3] "No dobro, preimenujem za Prekmurje dialect" meaning "I agree with the renaming to Prekmurje dialect". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kljub temu članek zelo slab, ni uporabnika, ki ga lahko korrigira. Doncsecz^talk 10:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per google translate the above is However, the article is very poor, not the user you can korrigira. Can we stick to English please?--ThePaintedOne (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He actually said "the article is very poor, no one can improve it". --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article had no AfD tag on it, I have added this. (I believe it was never on there, rather than removed). Ravendrop 21:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given by Ravendrop. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep nom looks rather pointy to me.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither a need for copy editing nor any of the disagreements over content being debated at Talk:Prekmurje dialect are grounds for deletion. Also, many of the cited sources seem appropriate, though I have only read one of them. Cnilep (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anakhanda

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

It is not notable village of Bangladesh. There is reference why this is so notable. even it is not satisfy local interests - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 16:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Populated places such as villages are inherently notable for Wikipedia purposes.~~ Populated places such as villages are considered by many editors to be automatically notable for Wikipedia purposes, and I suspect that one would have to search back a long time before finding such a place whose article has been deleted at AfD. The nominator would have to establish that this is not even a village at all before I could support deletion of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised my comments based on Mandford's comments below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NPLACE reflects the usual outcome on cities and villages being notable. I can't establish that it exists, however. I am concerned that the source that's appended to the article doesn't have an entry for Anakhanda, that the coordinates given don't link up to a place within a mile of a road, let alone a village, and Anakhanda doesn't show up on map searches. I tried Ana Khanda and that didn't work either. It sounds close enough to anaconda that it would be a great made-up name for a town if someone wanted to do that. There's a Viper, Kentucky (41774), so I'm not ready to boo and hiss this one yet. Mandsford 19:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The coordinates given were incorrect. I found a better source and fixed them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's listed in the GEOnet Names Server (link), which indicates that it is a real village. As Metropolitan90 said, verified populated places are considered inherently notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in that it's verified. Minor point, but, technically, we have no policy of inherent notability on populated places or on high schools or on a lot of other things, but common outcomes (of which WP:NPLACE is one) is the de facto rule, the product of the debates of AfD, and I'm all in favor of those. I should have quoted the language, which applies here "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source". Catalyst has taken care of the verification problem, hence it passes. As the language shows, populated places presupposes something that would qualify as its own village, incorporated or unincorporated, rather than a neighborhood within a city. Mandsford 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Dear All,In India there have 638,365 nos of village.[4]. You are all mean to said that I can create 638,365 nos of village? I see that at WP:NPLACE Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 11:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, we're not running out of space. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in answer to Jayanta's question, yes, one could create articles about any and all of the 638,365 villages in India, as long as their existence could be proven. Mandsford 13:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually I don't understand how Notability policy and "All villages are notable" statement are balanced.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 15:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and as a reply to the above comment: documentation of verifiable geographic topics such named populated settlements are generally considered within the scope of a general knowledge encyclopedia, which is what Wikipedia is. Perhaps the term "notable" was not the best way to describe concept of inclusion guidelines. If it makes more sense to you, think of notability as inclusion criteria instead. When considered in this manner, any settled village would meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia as it is within the scope of topics that we should cover. -- Whpq (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, I'd add, a large part of it is Wikipedia strives for a more global view than one would find elsewhere on the internet, not only from all over the world but also from towns large and small that would otherwise be ignored. Wikipedia:Systemic bias illustrates why we're very heavy on U.S.A. topics, along with the U.K., Canada, Australia, etc. and very light on everywhere else. Most Wikipedians couldn't find Bangladesh on the globe and are unaware of how large it is (150,000,000 people live there) and probably couldn't care less. The only problem I ever have with this is WP:NPLACE is misused by other persons who couldn't care less; we have some folks who think that they're contributing by mass producing articles whose content is limited to "_____ is a populated place in ____", but who have no intention of adding any more than that. Their thrill comes from creating and then abandoning, and Wikipedia has its share of "deadbeat dads". I don't see that pattern here, however. Mandsford 18:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you all for clarification. Ha!!! feel relax, no one can delete any village related article of India and Bangladesh. Thanks again.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about villages still have to comply with verifiability policy, so it's not strictly true that no one can delete them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spare Philosophy

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

Although the article appears to have a few references none are inline, as such it is difficult to ascertain notability. Tentontunic (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rubbish. Philosophy Teacher (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of notability William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. MurfleMan (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The question of merging, redirection, etc. can be discussed further on the article talk page, or indeed done WP:BOLDly. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Sheridan

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

I don't think she has notability independent of her husband, Tommy Sheridan, who is a well-known political figure in Scotland. Everything in the article (apart from media speculation she was going to stand for election) could be or is included in the article about their trial for perjury or at her husband. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has still had quite a lot of publicity in Scotland recently. If we do delete this, where do we redirect it to? It was recently agreed that she is more notable than the actress of the same name, so we could get into a muddle? PatGallacher (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestion would be that Gail Sheridan (actress) would move to "Gail Sheridan" and there would be a hatnote to Tommy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. I don't see which aspect of her life meets WP:N. She certainly doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, that's for sure. She's been a political activist, a failed local council candidate, an airline stewardess, and most recently was acquitted of perjury. I don't see it. I know this is an example of OTHER STUFF EXISTS, but Moira Salmond redirects to her better known husband (who has achieved a considerably higher political status than Tommy). A lot of the coverage of Gail stems from the libel and perjury cases, which seems to me a case of one event. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moira Salmond has not achieved any significant publicity recently. Gail Sheridan was one of the two accused in the highest profile criminal case to have taken place in Scotland for some time, although she was acquitted. PatGallacher (talk)
  - Which is why we have an article at HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan. That doesn't confer notability of itself. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - and redirect to her husband...as per, lack of independent note. The legal case has an article - Off2riorob (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - the information is certainly of interest, though if someone can find a way of incorporating it neatly into the other articles (and redirecting the reader to that information), that would be OK.--Kotniski (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her husband's article, as per Judy Steel, Moira Salmond, and probably a lot of other spouses of famous people. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see what way this is going so I have incorporated some of the content into HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan. However we have the complication that we also have Gail Sheridan (actress). If we decide that the Scotswoman is not notable then does the American actress become the primary meaning? I suggest we move her, with a hatnote to Tommy Sheridan and the court case. PatGallacher (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. lifebaka++ 02:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stilwells

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Also, article says that was a hamlet shown on Hunterdon County maps between 1851 and 1902. However, this 1872 map of Hunterdon County ain't showing nothin' about no Stilwells hamlet. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This deletion request includes any content fork or redirect target article to which this content is split or moved, including Stilwell, Readington Township, New Jersey, Stilwells, New Jersey, Stilwells, Readington Township, New Jersey, and Stilwells,New Jersey. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it helps someone find anything (and I couldn't) all I found was a mention that it was located 1.5 miles south of Whitehouse Station. Ravendrop 22:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge to Stilwells, Readington Township, New Jersey. Several sources between the two articles. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That page now has an AfD notice on it which points to this discussion. Which article is up for deletion? Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All post-AfD nomination created "Stilwell" content is up for deletion. After Stilwells was listed for deletion, Richard Arthur Norton made Stilwells a redirect and moved Stilwells to "Stilwells,New Jersey" (no space after comma), to "Stilwells, New Jersey" (space after comma), to "Stilwell, Readington Township, New Jersey" (no "s" at the end of Stilwell), and to Stilwells, Readington Township, New Jersey ("s" at the end of Stilwells). In the mean time, the original creator of the article, User:A1%, undid Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s redirect of Stilwells and then both Stilwells and Stilwells, Readington Township, New Jersey were edited. As of now, all "Stilwells" content is back in Stilwells. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Further on the nom, Stilwells was nothing more than what people back then called the private land owned by the Stilwells family to described who lived and worked there.[5] The family lived in Readington. Readington is shown in this 1872 map, in the center of the map in peach color. Ravendrop above notes that Stilwells was located 1.5 miles south of Whitehouse Station. On the 1872 map, you can see White House Station, but the map does not show the Stilwells home. While the Stilwells home did exist, it has not been noticed enought to meet WP:N for a standalone article. Also, the topic already is covered by Readington_Township,_New_Jersey#Villages. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a notable family, and the sources may be better used to work on articles about several of its notable members. The sources in the article don't provide sufficient evidence to me that this was ever a commonly used place name, nor do they support an independent article. There are no entries in my usual gazetteer sources for this name either. A small mention in the Readington article may be justifiable. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jim Miller, and ensure all the redirects/forks are smoked as well. Given the user involved, however, this will end up at DRV regardless. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, speedy via G10 as a likely attack page. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Eegit Lampard (SEL)

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

First it was a character in a childrens' book now supposedly of a Punjabi folk tale. No hits on Google. Has the strong smell of a hoax and/or possible attack page (assuming "Stan Eegit Lampard" is a real person) Travelbird (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. A greenhouse in 1800? Though Robert Hooke discovered the "basic functional unit of all known living organisms," the final theory wasn't clarified until the mid 1800's. And we're supposed to believe this is part of a Punjabi folktale from 1800? Obvious hoax. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You my sir are racist! I have been told this tale at a young age and my parents knew of it and theirs before them. If you know nothing of Punjab then don't write about it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J3wman (talk • contribs)

Now calm down and try to avoid insults. For starters, I meant "a time traveling greenhouse ..." as stated in the article, not just a greenhouse. Where does "racism" come into discussing this article? If you call me "ignorant" I might buy that (ignorance is a state we all fall into signifying a lack of knowledge, not stupidity) but "racist?" I do contest that epithet. This article might very well NOT be a hoax, so please discuss the merits by citing authoritative third party sources that support this rather than cast unfounded insults, especially if you are an expert in Punjabi folklore. I have no problem being enlightened and changing my viewpoint. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Refer to the newly added list of "Other Hobbies". I'm not going to post what is listed there because this discussion page will be preserved, but my concerns re the possibility of this being an attack page are becoming stronger. If this really isn't a hoax/attack page, then we need good sources asap. Subsequent edits are making this seem more and more like a case of speedy delete as obvious hoax/attack page. Travelbird (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment further After checking the users edit history I found I found this edit which makes it highly probable that this is an attack on a person. I have thus blanked the page and tagged it for speedy deletion. Travelbird (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ro Hancock-Child

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

Subject, a musician and author, does not appear to meet the notability criteria set forth at WP:MUSIC or WP:AUTHOR, or the more general criteria of WP:Notability (people). JohnInDC (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Search engine references to her, while numerous, yield no discernable reliable third party coverage but rather merely links back to her own website, Wikipedia & mirrors, social networking sites, or sites offering to sell one or another of the books she has published through her own company. Finally, the article appears to be largely the creation of the subject herself and by various SPA accounts, who might be friends or colleagues of the subject. (See this Talk page comment.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Self promoting autobio without significant third party coverage.Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to me to fail WP:BAND, although I'll admit this is not my specialty. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't see how the article passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Midlakewinter (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - self promoting autobiography and fails WP:MUSIC. ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry this is a bit long, but I want to present the evidence on which I based my decision. I don't enjoy !voting delete on classical musician articles. While this article has serious COI issues, that in itself is immaterial to the notability of the subject.
The three commercial CDs listed are really only two. English Song is a compilation of Naxos recordings by many different artists and simply republishes 5 tracks from a A Ballad Maker . Naxos/Marco Polo is a notable classical music label. Dinmore is not. Several more recordings had been listed, distributed not on the Chandos label itself but as downloads in the Chandos Artist Showcase. It's not the same thing, see [6]. The only recording to have been reviewed was A Ballad Maker (in Gramophone and Fanfare) The Gramophone review did not mention her at all. I can find no reviews of her recitals in either mainstream or specialised classical music press, and no evidence that she has ever performed in a major concert hall. Likewise coverage of her as a composer is nil, even in specialised music journals. All her compositions appear to be self published apart from Leo which is one of several choices on the Trinity Guildhall music exam syllabus (but not a required piece). None of them appear to have been recorded or played in recitals by notable musicians. Barring some new evidence in reliable independent sources, I can't see this passing the WP:MUSICBIO criteria.
The two very short books on Armstrong Gibbs and Madeleine Dring (the latter self-published) drew virtually no critical or scholarly attention. What is available is already referenced. According to WorldCat, the Armstrong Gibbs book is held in only 11 libraries worldwide, the Madeleine Dring in only 10. [7] Google books is not a perfect tool, but I can find only only three or four books in total that even list one of these books in the bibliography. Even allowing for the niche subjects, that's a pretty low citation rate and impact. Again, barring some last minute "finds", I can't see this passing the WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC criteria either. Voceditenore (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even allowing for the appalling lack of coverage of classical music and musicians in mainstream publications, which may lower the bar considerably and permit us to find notability for persons covered only in specialty press and publications, there is no significant substantive independent coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources for this person. Fladrif (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:BAND Johnclean184 (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music - Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately and irrevocably. I wish this article about me, Ro Hancock-Child, to be removed from this 'encyclopaedia'. I was initially genuinely delighted that someone should consider me a candidate for inclusion in Wiki, but my recent witnessing of the savage treatment of this article, the hacking-about of the material by non-musicians, and the ignorance demonstrated by some Wiki editors of how the classical music world works, has saddened me tremendously.

The acknowledged (see above) 'appalling lack of coverage' of classical musicians in well-distributed published sources discriminates against us when being considered for Wiki. It seems that a pop musician on heroin who smashes his guitar once on stage and gets splashed all over the tabloids is 'notable', whereas I, and very many others like me, who are solidly and highly educated, intensely musical, and achieve consistently over many decades (in my case 35 years) are not as immediately visible, so we don't make your grade. However, we are undoubtedly far superior in terms of what we have given to the world.

Wiki articles such as mine urgently need to be assessed, not by amateur committee, but by specialists in the particular field, who have some basic idea of, for example, whether inclusion on an exam syllabus is 'notable' or not: you evidently have no appreciation of what I have achieved here, both as a woman and a living modern composer, getting an inclusion on a major syllabus like this, given the massive amount of competition that exists.

Having watched what has been happening over the past few weeks, I now consider any association with Wiki to be injurious to my reputation as a classical musician, and I feel tainted by the whole thing. Just because some guy in mid-America can't, in February 2011, quickly locate my work from, say, 1985, via electronic means, has absolutely no bearing on whether or not I have contributed substantially - and 'notably' - to British music, which classical musicians will assure you I have.

I leave you to your childish squabbling and debating. In my opinion it would be more valuable for you to address yourselves to something worthwhile such as world hunger, because there would be more far point to it than squandering your time considering whether or not you can write, in a supposed encyclopaedia, the incontrovertible fact that 'she has perfect pitch' (which I categorically DO).

Please DELETE this article on Ro Hancock-Child now. Thankyou.

Ro Hancock-Child, deeply saddened by what I have been reading. 11 Feb 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohancockchild (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about finding your work and "assessing" it. Wikipedia does not work that way, as many of us have tried to explain to you. Wikipedia is not a primary source and does not publish "new" information on the article's subject or the unpublished opinions of anyone, including their colleagues, no matter how eminent those colleagues may be. The criteria for inclusion is that others have written about you and your work in published sources that are completely independent of you. They don't have to be in mainstream newspapers. Many of us have access to specialist music journals. We have looked and haven't been able to find anything. Non-notable in the Wikipedia sense does not mean that the person is not accomplished or does not have the respect of their colleagues. Conversely, having an article here is no badge of honour or personal validation. I really wish people would read those various guidlines and policies before they try to get articles about themselves into Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am resisting the idea of seeking a speedy delete now, figuring that the subject's wish to see an article removed is pretty much beside the point. That being said, the article was largely constructed by SPAs of questionable independence; and it's pretty clear which way the wind is blowing here in the AfD. I'll leave this call up to folks who may have a better sense of how to proceed in light of the comments above. JohnInDC (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – An admin could do an early close on this this as "delete", which I'd have no objection to. But it doesn't qualify for speedy delete G7. Leaving aside the multiple single purpose accounts, too many other editors have made substantial edits both to the article and the talk page, and the AfD decision needs to be recorded. This is not the first time this article was created and subsequently deleted. [8]. Voceditenore (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is telling that Ms. Hancock-Child does not choose to post biographical details on her own incomplete webpages. As a full-time musician, I view this article merely as a summary that could be applied to thousands of others. It is neither more or less memorable or noteworthy than legions of others who maintain an income through music. The article describes a typically self-employed person, carrying out a combination of some paeripatetic music teaching in private practise, school teaching, occasional concert giving, composing, writing literary essays, and for Ms. Hancock Child; geneology and home based crafting hobbies! There seems to be almost no independent validation of her work in reviews, theater or concert hall listings. I strayed onto this discussion in an attempt to research Madelaine Dring's compositions, but find even then that Ms. Hancock-Child's webpage for Dring is now a dating site/blog? Without personal criticism of Ms. Hancock Child, it seems that this is a biography or possible autobiography which has no place in an encyclopedia and would be better referenced solely on Ms Hancock-Child's own webpages. Cyranosnose (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article today, please, and Comment - Then Cyranosnose, you have little grasp of the musical genre in which I work (art-song) which is by nature an intimate thing and has no place on the operatic stage, nor in the theatre/theater: the majority of our concerts are (following longstanding tradition, see Schubert) deliberately designed for small audiences, to whom, and with whom, we talk as we go along. This is how song works, it's poles apart from Wagner (probably beloved of Voceditenore). Even though an event is top quality, small gatherings do not often attract journalists, and therefore no article appears in print; this is no reflection on the event, it's a business decision made by a magazine etc. Moreover, did you know that some of the articles and advertisements/features in glossy classical music magazines, on which you/Wiki seem to heavily rely, are actually paid for by the people who are in them ? (otherwise they would not be there) - surely this is blatant self-promotion if ever I saw it; I've never gone down this route myself.

I take great exception to your implied denigration of professional work that I do 'at home', as if it were inferior to work carried out in a rented hall. Monet worked in his own house, remember ?

Again I call for this article on me, Ro Hancock-Child, to be deleted. Too right, a Wiki article is no badge of honour: it is in fact a liability, and indeed a dangerous thing. My own 'badges of honour' are my fine and solid educational qualifications (it's very rare for women to do what I have done), and my long history of promotion of other musicians' and composers' work, lifting them on many occasions out of undeserved obscurity.

For your information, the universities local to me in the UK forbid their students to use Wiki for any research, neither may they refer to it in their written assignments, because Wiki is considered by UK academia to be unreliable, inaccurate, biased, and in many cases completely wrong. Please note what I say here.

By the way, Cyranosnose, Madeleine Dring's first name is spelt with an 'e' in 6th place, not an 'a', as you did; and 'geneology' [shd be geneAlogy' - genea = race] is completely wrong - much carelessness on your part, yet you probably consider yourself adequately literate to be able to go ahead and edit an article, maybe even one on me.

Please remove Ro Hancock-Child immediately from Wiki, and I will be advising all musical colleagues to try to ensure that no Wiki article on them ever appears, for I would not want them to be subjected to the same disrespect as I am suffering now.

Signed Ro Hancock-Child 12.2.2011 (and I always sign work with my real name, I never skulk behind 'clever' pseudonyms, as many of you do). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohancockchild (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are of course entitled to your opinions about how notable you are and to Wikipedia's sourcing and notability requirements. However, they are non-negotiable, and the framework in which we all have to work here, whether or not you personally find them congenial. Your personal attacks on other editors and what you wrongly presume to be their personal tastes, knowledge and backgrounds is inappropriate. Please refrain from doing this in future comments here. Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (e/c) - There is a particular irony in chastising Wikipedia editors for their (presumed) ignorance of your field while at the same time, despite repeated entreaties, refusing to learn anything about Wikipedia and how *it* operates. The article will surely be deleted, but it will be deleted only in due course, per Wikipedia policies and procedures. The deletion is nothing personal - really - and I'm sorry that you've taken it that way.

The article will probably disappear a week after I nominated it for deletion, give or take a day. Perhaps you should just check back around about the 17th or 18th and make sure it has happened. There's not much to be gained by these exchanges in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is useless to note that a number of universities assign their students projects working on Wikipedia articles, that a number of academics are editors here, etc. Of course no student should use Wikipedia as a reference, but if any universities forbid their students to read Wikipedia articles looking for references those universities are foolish, as a)you can't stop students doing it, and b)many of our articles are very good sources for references. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institution of Technicians & Engineers(Kashmir)

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

I tried to move this page to Institution of Technicians & Engineers (Kashmir) but that page is protected from re-creation due to notability concerns. Personally I would say that this might just be notable enough to pass, however it does need an extensive re-write. Possibly an expert on Indian education can enlighten us whether this institution is widely known and/or recognized. Travelbird (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attempt to circumvent creation protection. I have tagged the article accordingly. I have also left a note on the author's talk page explaining that this organization needs to meet WP:N, and advised him/her to create a userspace draft. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a local college of little note, no refs. Szzuk (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I think it is clear that the editor has admitted there is no published evidence yet, & withdrawn the article, which can of course be rec-created whensufficient reliably sourced material is found. DGG ( talk ) 15:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lasagna Panel

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

Supposed technical term. No sources provided and I can't get any hits on Google. It could be a very specific technical term in which case there may be grounds to keep it or it may well be a privately created term by the page creator that isn't widely used, in which case it should be deleted. At the moment WP:V Travelbird (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the discussion, I've heard this term used in three different contexts this year. GreenInker (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - I have now moved the page to Lasagne Panel, the proper spelling. GreenInker (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [9] and [10] pretty well says it all. Hasn't caught on, and, given the questions of spelling it and having to explain it, I will be surprised if it ever does catch on. Mandsford 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The links you give seem to be Google searches - I am unclear of what they are meant to be "saying". And I don't understand the relevance of something having to be explained meaning it isn't valid. Did you know what a pecha kucha was without it being explained? GreenInker (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there are many places where I could look. The links are meant to be saying that, at 12 or 13 hits, this is an extremely obscure phrase. Pecha kucha has 670,000 hits, so it doesn't suffer from that problem. The part of having to be explained has to do with why I would be surprised if it ever becomes a common phrase. In other words, if the listener's reaction is going to be "why do they call it _______?"-- the article doesn't explain what the analogy to lasagna is-- then it's not likely to become a popular expression. My guess is no better than anyone else's about whether it will become well-known. However, there's no doubt that it currently isn't. Mandsford 22:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss my point about "pecha kucha". First time I heard that, I had no idea what it's etymology was. That hasn't stopped it becoming a common phrase over the past couple of years. Yes, it generates a lot of Google hits now, but I bet it didn't when it first started being used with that meaning - Google follows usage, not vice versa, I think. Is Wikipedia policy that only once a concept has lots of Google hits can it become an article. A grumpy person might wonder what the point would be of Wikipedia if just summarised Google searches :) GreenInker (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policy pretty well turns upon whether something is notable, and it's a complex set of rules at WP:N. What it defines as "notable topics"-- i.e., those that would get their own article-- are "those that have been 'noticed' to a significant degree by independent sources", and it goes on to say that "A topic is deemed appropriate for inclusion as a standalone article if it complies with WP:NOT and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." There are some topics that get to bypass that shallow standard by being declared inherently notable, such as a national or state legislator from anywhere in the world and any era, most of whom wouldn't get lots of "buzz" on the internet. Everything else comes down to proof of significant coverage. True, Google is not the only way to prove that something has gotten significant notice or coverage. However, search engines do provide a common means of verifiability if an assertion, in that anyone who uses Wikipedia also has search tools. I think that your reasoning may be that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that people would consult an encyclopedia if they came across an unfamiliar term like "lasagne panel", and that, therefore, the term should be on Wikipedia. However, there's still a threshold requirement that a coined term has to demonstrate notability, like any other topic, before it gets its own page. There's a branch of this called "Wiktionary" for new words and phrases, accessible from the main page here. Mandsford 13:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - whatever the rules say. I guess we just come back in a few months when there is some evidence of it on Google, and do it then. GreenInker (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JD Dworkow

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

Unable to find coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unreferenced BLP. The article has previously been prodded and denied. J04n(talk page) 12:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - based on the above {{findsources}} searches, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burkett restaurant equipment

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

Non-notable minor company. Only sources are based on a press release by the company itself. Travelbird (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nomination. Inclusion in "top 5000" lists does not establish significant effects on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, sources are directories and a press release. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Keegan under A7, "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Perhaps subject is a real person, but consensus is the claims are not real. Mandsford 22:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Allison Casiño

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

Claims some notability but i can't find any trace of "Joseph Allison Casiño" on Google or imdb.com. May be a hoax or simply not notable enough. Travelbird (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax to me too. If he appeared in Glee, it was in the Fringe universe. Mandsford 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Hoax, no source. — JL 09 ^talk_contribs 14:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~As what the judges on American Idol would say: It's a no. No, as in no results on Google. Tagged as A7, but may also qualify for G3. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence that Nur meets the WP:GNG, nor a compelling reason not to apply the GNG. lifebaka++ 02:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yusif Khalil Abdallah Nur

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

Fails WP:BIO. No independent reliable sources about him (the independent, non-government sources listed in the article don't even mention him). I wasn't able to find any independent reliable sources about him. Fram (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We cannot have BLP's based entirely on templates and primary documents.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 11:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources under the general notability guideline. Bulk of the references are primary documents per WP:PRIMARY. Anotherclown (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks "significant independent coverage" perWP:GNG as primary sources can not establish notability. IQinn (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Again and again, these Guantanamo detainee articles have been nominated and in many cases deleted, all under a misapprehension. I knew there was something fishy about it, but I only nailed down what was wrong, today. There appears to be a widespread misunderstanding of PRIMARY, that has leaked into other major WP rules: N, V, GNG, just to mention the most influential ones. For example, this sentence has been quoted often to support deletion. Read it carefully. It quite clearly supports inclusion. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, TO SUPPORT ASSERTIONS about a living person" (my capitalization). We can report what the Combatant Status Review Tribunal said, just as we do in its own article; making assertions about their statements are not a requirement of these articles, or any article that uses primary sources. And yet N and V all carry on as if PRIMARY did not exist, requiring independence and secondary sources. The only requirement in PRIMARY is that the sources are not interpreted in a POV manner (we must report what sources say, without bias). Independence of sources is only, and imo wrongly, required in GNG (Declaring sources independent or not is itself a subjective judgement. We should be reporting what sources say in an unbiased, not adding our bias by choosing which sources to report on and which not to). Independence is not a requirement in PRIMARY. And more importantly, secondary sources are not required; PRIMARY shows that quite clearly. Over and over in PRIMARY it is stated that primary sources can be used; editors to N, V, GNG and voters to delete and nominators alike have failed to see the narrow focus of what is actually excluded. Anarchangel (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The interpretation of these primary sources is an interesting topic but it is almost irrelevant for this Afd discussion as primary sources can not be used to establish notability. "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." from WP:GNG. There is no "significant independent coverage" in of him in secondary sources therefore the article fails WP:GNG. IQinn (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "strong keep" does not address anything in the nomination, but tries to convince people that not only is PRIMARY contradicting WP:V, WP:BIO, etcetera, but for some reason PRIMARY is then the correct one and all others are wrong... Primary sources can be used, of course, and no one has said that they can't be used: however, they don't count towards notability, they shouldn't be the basis of articles, and certainly with court documents and the like, extra care should be taken. For e.g. this article, the main problem is the lack of notability, as defined in WP:BIO. WP:PRIMARY does not address whether a subject can have a Wikipedia article or not, it just describes how to use (and not use) primary sources in the case that we do have an article. So basically your strong keep is a big strawman argument, arguing against an imaginary reason for deletion. Fram (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you do not refute the fact that PRIMARY on the one hand and N and GNG on the other are incompatible. Why is it that you believe N and GNG to be right and PRIMARY wrong? I believe PRIMARY is the correct one because it is the root of reasoning about source types, and that erroneous understanding of it has led to erroneous instruction creep in the others. And as for rules being only about article content and not about deletion, why thank you for bringing that up. I have long been a proponent of the possibility that WP:DEL alone should be considered as the basis for deleting articles. But that sort of leaves out N and GNG, doesn't it? Are you sure you want to go down that road?

Delete - The above-argument makes the case rather than opposes it. When one uses primary sources as the basis for an article, one is engaging in original research. This is the very reason Wikipedia has its secondary source requirements. As it stands, these are primary sources, the research is original, and the subject, who has not been the subject of secondary source coverage, fails notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully there is more measured and complete reasoning at the heart of the erroneous exclusion of primary sources in N and GNG. But if not, it would explain a lot. How on earth could putting <ref></ref> around a URL be original research? Anarchangel (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has some notability due to his stay in Gitmo, but the relevant information could be mentioned in an article about Saudi people detained at Guantanamo Bay, I suppose. I don't see enough specific coverage of him to merit a stand alone article. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a preliminary, the material is verifiable--even the NYTimes republished it. , [11] . Agreed, it's a reprinting of a primary source, not a secondary source. Now, the fact that they chose to republish it and all the other Gitmo documents shows that they regard it as worth publication in full. They're a paper of record, and are known for republishing documents of importance. That they chose to reprint these documents shows of course their overall importance. That the chose to index it rather elaborately by the name of each individual, and reprint the material for each individual in full detail,shows that they regard each of the individual as of importance.

I apologize for not realizing this earlier, for it applies to essentially every one of the articles on the Gitmo prisoners. They did not do this for POWs in earlier wars; even for US casualties, they normally gave only a list, not the relevant documents in full. It follows they they judge each of this particular set of people as individually important--as far as I can tell, beyond any precedent. . We differ here on our own judgement of the individual notability , and are apparently not going to settle this by argument. Therefore so we must do what we normally do, and see how the sources handle it. We see how the NYT does. I trust their judgement over everybody here, including myself. I even trust their judgment more than our collective wisdom. This is the point of WP:V and the principle underlying WP:N and WP:NPOV and all our content policies: we follow the sources. Wikipedia, as has been said frequently and unanimously at AfD by everyone involved in this and other discussions, is not a place for original research or original interpretations. We follow the sources. We have always said that we consider the NYT such a RS that their publishing a substantial article is enough to meet the GNG. I think it follows that their publishing such a substantial amount of documentation about a particular individual shows exactly the same. And at the very least, it can be merged into a combination article, as Yachtsman suggests, so deletion is not appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right the NYT's is a reliable source. (your source). The NYT's reliable provides an archive of primary source documents. That does not change the fact that they are primary sources unless the NYT's would start interpreting the documents about Yusif Khalil Abdallah Nur what they have not done as far as i know. Primary sources do not count towards notability under WP:GNG. "Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.". There is simply no "Significant coverage" about this individual that is needed to establish notability. IQinn (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you are really grasping at straws here. "As a preliminary, the material is verifiable". Duh, that was never disputed, so bringing it up now is hardly a revelation. Furthermore, let's be clear, they republished all the info, indiscriminately, on their website, not in the newspaper. It follows that they consider the detainees (or the process that gave us these documents) important. If they considered all individual detainees important, you would expect them to give some individual attention to them, interviewing those that are released, interviewing their family, doing some journalistic work instead of just reprinting these documents. They haven't done this for this person or for the vast majority of them. Reprinting documents is something that the Wiki does at Wikisource, not at Wikipedia. The NYT has, contrary to your assertion, not published a substantial article on this person at all, they have simply republished, on their website, hundreds of documents. Deletion is perfectly appropriate, we already have multiple combination articles, both as a list of all detainees and lists of detainees per country. There is nothing left to merge, and thus nothing to keep. We have ample precedent for this in the countless previous AfDs on Guantanamo detainees with similar NYT webpages which were deleted nevertheless. Fram (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with pointing out empirically observable facts such as the fact that NYT covers things in a certain way, but speculation about why they do so is just not within our purview, until logic and deductive reasoning become accepted at WP as no longer subservient to rules such as AGF, OR, SYNTH, etc. Anarchangel (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on the basis of my argument above, I think all the previous AfDs that led to deletion were wrongly decided, even the ones where I myself may have voted other than keep. In fact, I had written an opinion for merge on this one, when I realized the strength of the argument and rewrote. I had not realized the degree to which the NYT reprinting not only validates the material--which was a vefy frequent objection in some of the earlier AfDs--but indicates that the material is important. I don't think you really understand my argument, which is that if they publish documents, the documents are important and the subjects primarily treated in the documents are important. If they had merely published summary documents on gitmo naming the detainees, it would just show the importance of gitmo, which is not in question. But that they reprinted documents in full detail on each one of the individual detainees, indicates their view that the individuals are each of them important enough to have the documents in their particular case published in the most important international newspaper of record. I know it's a novel argument--I did not make it before this way because I did not realize the implication myself. It changed the way I think about how we show notability and the meaning of WP:RS, & I'll be proposing a rewording of some parts of the guidelines. Perhaps you will too, if you reconsider it with an open mind, not trying to prove your views, but thinking as if it were something unrelated coming here afresh. Sometimes I've been wrong; I was wrong before when I failed to understand the importance of how the primary sources are published and by whom. You compared with Wikisource: but if Wikisource reprints material, it means very little about their importance. Wikisource has no authority in judging importance the NYT does. That's one of the good things about working here in a environment of mutual questioning--considering the material can lead to new insights. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They consider it so important that they haven't spend any journalistic work on it, and even don't link it in their archives[12]. They are still primary documents, republished on a secondary source. We don't have sufficient secondary source material to base the biography on, which is a requirement for all articles and certainly for BLPs. Fram (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"They are still primary documents, republished on a secondary source." That is all that any secondary sources do: republish information from primary sources. You appear to have argued yourself into doubting something universally accepted at WP. See also my replies above; PRIMARY continues to exclude only OR based on primary sources, not the use of sources themselves to verify information; neither does it represent primary sources as unreliable. Therefore, since Notability is established by the use of Reliable Sources to provide Verifiability, and the article provides no less than 17 RS to provide V, the article's subject continues to be Notable. Anarchangel (talk) 02:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we accept the NYTs reprinting of this material as being a secondary source, a single reliable secondary source does not constitute "significant coverage". There needs to be much more than this to meet the required level of coverage under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchangel: Primary sources that are hosted on the server of secondary sources are still primary sources as the NYT's has has not published any interpretation of these documents and i am sure you can find these primary sources on other servers as well. The bottom line is: They are primary sources. Not only that. They are one of the most unreliable primary sources that exist on the planet earth.

Not much more to say primary sources do not count towards notability what's however.

17 RS? There are no 17 RS in the article about the subject of this biography. Not true. Well i just checked all of them in detail and reduced the article to what has been verified about this individual by reliable secondary sources. See also WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIMARY, author=OARDEC. IQinn (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports. Any claim that these documents are either secondary or reliable is just laughable. IQinn (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When one shows up late to a discussion, one has to catch up. Turns out N and GNG have been wrong, for years. It is you who needs to read PRIMARY again. Anarchangel (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The time stamps verify that i showed up at this discussion earlier than you and it turns out that our basic policies N and GNG are well established and valid. IQinn (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it doesn't appear like there is enough coverage to satisfy the requirements of the WP:GNG for this to be a stand alone article. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep – nomination by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 03:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom

AfDs for this article:

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

Classic example of indiscriminate listcruft. The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand what the term "out-of-town" shopping centres refers to. Brent Cross, for example, is located in the London Borough of Barnet, which has a population over 300,000 -- that doesn't sound like it was built outside of a municipality. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In American English it would probably be defined as a large shopping mall, often with other leisure attractions like cinemas, rinks, etc., built on the outskirts/suburbs of major cities and not in the city centre. It's a far more common occurrence in the States/Canada. Suburban Mall might also be a fair, shorthand description. Ravendrop 22:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge/Re-create into Article title Out-of-Town Shopping Centre, as that term itself is notable. A quick google scholar search pulls up plenty of articles: International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, A 200 page book, Out-of-Town Shopping Centres in the Netherlands, etc. I'd also support a delete as point of starting over. Ravendrop 22:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of 324 Arabic names

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

Not a single independent source has given any attention to this list of names. It hasn't been the focus of any discussion or commentary. Fails WP:N by a large margin. Fram (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yet another example of an article attempting to pass off something merely mentioned in the Guantanamo administrative review documents as a separate encyclopedic topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 09:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. IQinn (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, fails notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, as withdrawn by the AfD nominator. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particle number

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

Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. There's no potential for growth here IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep after recent expansions. I was wrong about potential for growth. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Being unfamiliar with physics, and having read the article and its classification as "high importance" (classified as such in 2008, since which time no additional edits have taken place), my initial inclination was towards something like a weak keep. But... the nom's right, this is plain Wikipedia is not a dictionary stuff, and the fact that it is, in its current state, no more than a definition of a term, and has been so since 2008 (the last time it was meaningfully edited), is compelling. I'm pretty confident that a particle number is an important term in physics, but I'm almost as confident that it is just that: a term....I should probably abstain from this conversation until other editors who are familiar with physics come in and demonstrate conclusively why this should end as Keep. A swift smack to my forehead, please. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The classification "high importance" is quite justified; it is indeed a fundamental parameter. While the article is short, it is not just a "dictionary definition" – this term is not found in dictionaries, and even if "particle number" had an entry in some dictionary, it would surely not tell us that the particle number is conjugate to the chemical potential, or how its meaning in a given thermodynamical process depends on the energy scale. This article is linked to by over one hundred other articles – largely by transclusion, but directly by several others, such as Thermodynamic equations, and it is not practical or reasonable to explain the meaning in sufficient detail in all articles that refer to and depend on this concept. Deleting this article will thus be grossly disruptive. --Lambiam 10:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Particle number N, is one of the fundamental variables of thermodynamics/statistical mechanics, being conjugate to chemical potential. If this, is to be deleted we might as well delete volume. The fact that the article mentions this, already conclusively shows that there is more to say about the subject then just a dictionary definition.T R 13:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck? Keep per Lambiam and TR. --A. di M. (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can actually be expanded quite a lot, e.g. by including formulas for the cases of bosons and fermions, by giving the formula for the fluctuations in the particle number, by pointing out that for chemical potential zero it is undefined (example: photons). Also one can one can look at the case of bosons in detail and point out that below a critical temperature you have a macroscopic contribution to the particle number coming from the ground state alone, so this is then the critical temperature for Bose-Enstein condesation. So, that's quite a lot to write about... Count Iblis (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe not grown very much but can be improved. This is an important term not a dictionary word or phrase. Ian Cairns (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Particle number is an important variable in both thermodynamics and the second quantization to get quantum field theory. JRSpriggs (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Though I found outside sources that talk about Weinberg, they focus on his product, not him (USA Today, MIT, TechCrunch). This doesn't qualify him for a separate article under notability policy. As for information to merge, it appears that everything in this article exists in the Duck Duck Go article. Any questions about this AFD may be directed to my talk page. m.o.p 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Weinberg

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

~~Delete~~ Merge by nominator. Seems like a normal entrepreneur. Nothing seems to set him apart from the others. Not really that notable. Tens of millions, alas, is small money nowdays. Weakly cited and not too credibly either. It appears that his product is notable. Merge to Duck Duck Go per WP:BIO1E. Student7 (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gabriel Weinberg is a very important entrepeneur, who created the worlds greatest search engine, but if you would like to be tracked by Google that's fine with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddonald99 (talk • contribs) — Ddonald99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. "World's greatest?" Where does this stand on Alexa? I got down to the #120 and got tired of paging. Did I miss it? Student7 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Since you have only contributed material in support of Gabriel Weinberg, or vandalizing my site, you wouldn't happen to be related to, or actually the subject in this case would you? Perfectly legal to vote BTW, but not the best person to be writing an article on the subject. Student7 (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-1st ammendment, freedom of speech. you can't deny the constitution!

P.S. I like Christopher Columbus because he discovered that the Earth was round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddonald99 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gabriel Weinburg has received a fair bit of attention due to his projects, including the DuckDuckGo search engine (which has been mentioned by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times). 82.132.210.239 (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC) — 82.132.210.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Mentioned? Not in article anyplace. The only article quoted there is a website constructed by the subject. This is not considered WP:RELY for this purpose. Student7 (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See this Wall Street Journal article, and this New York Times article. Oh, and remember all those email you got from Names Database, Gabriel Weinberg created it.

P.S. Its easy to find the two articles if you use DuckDuckGo's !bang feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddonald99 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. As this is your only contribution to Wikipedia so far, can we assume that you were conscripted by Ddonald99 to vote in favor of retention? That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I'm sure you did not know that, but it is. Student7 (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Duck Duck Go, insufficient available references to justify at stand-alone biography article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia didn't become the largest encyclopedia ever by deleting pages that are about something that is "Not that notable." First of all, his company, DuckDuckGo, is very notable. And now you'll say "but he isn't", well most people don't know who Larry Page and Sergey Brin are. They created, possibly the most notable website on the planet. If you delete this page Gabriel Weinberg may never become notable.--Ddonald99 (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest you refer to policy on notability as your perspective is different. Also Wikipedia is not a democracy, so your voting a second time and randomly adding "P.S"s might be better served by bearing the burden of the author and addressing the concerns on this page and enhancing the article with the reliable sources Cheers. Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I dont see point of merging until a source other than a self-published website is added to the content. Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p 07:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A self published reference (which is only two sentences long) is not enough for notability. The two articles cited by User talk:Ddonald99 give only a passing mention to him. They are fully about the search engine and not the person. They definitely don't constitute in-depth coverage. The search engine may be notable, but notability is not inherited. Ravendrop 07:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The New York Times article does not even mention Weinberg, and in the WSJ article he is speaking about the company mostly. All that has been demonstrated that is verifiable from a non-self published source is that Weinberg is an entrepreneur solely running a notable company, and that is from only one source. This is not notable at this time. Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge any usable content into the article on the above-mentioned "world's greatest search engine" that I've never heard of and delete. My bias, however, is towards outright deletion, as I don't really see much usable content in this article. It's plainly non-notable. Existing and aforementioned sources do not cover the subject of this article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ákos Agárdy

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

Non-notable junior hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball Dolovis (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY. He has dressed for 2 Hungarian National Team games, but has yet to play in one, and it is the latter that confers notability. Ravendrop 08:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep was on the national team, meaning he was choosen as the best in his country meets WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He played on the junior national team[13], not the senior national team as is required to meet the criteria of NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he was also called up to the senior national team. And he played in the Interliga which is a top level professional league. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A call-up is not the same as playing, and he has never played on the senior men's team. Interliga was a minor European league, and cannot be considered a top level professional league (see Alpenliga for a better description of how it was a league was formed and operated), and in any event, it appears that he never played in an Interliga game either.[14] Dolovis (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in that he may not have played in the actual games so I've change it to a weak keep probably since finding non-hungarian references is hard for ice hockey and I am not fluent in hungarian to read the hungarian ones well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject never actually played in a game for the national team, and I can't find evidence that he did anything more than dress in those Interliga games. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 16:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Dolovis (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nurmsook. Reso lute 20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Kimble

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 2. (Discussed four years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kimble.) I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Sufficiently notable per NYT mention (I only added one cite). Collect (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is sufficient; and if the article is slightly edited to show the subject's work as a scientist researching hormonal rage syndrome etc and not primarily as a political candidate the notability question is moot on all aspects and the article should stay. There is no question that there has been national and even worldwide attention given to this man during the 1996 elections and the 2000 elections for his unorthodox and novel campaign strategies. Keep the article in my opinion as he is notable.69.243.59.171 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)— 69.243.59.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The NYT coverage appears to be about the (admittedly amusing) fact that Kimble's campaign manager in 2000 was the wife of an opponent. This is the stuff of one-off trivia. I'd be willing to consider his notability on a separate basis if this article covered his "work as a scientist researching hormonal rage syndrome," but I see no notable coverage of his work in this capacity, and I can't help but look askance at "keep" votes that have as their basis arguments like "he's not notable in the context of the current article, he's notable in this completely, totally unrelated context." (no offense intended there) Let's be frank: if this guy's campaign manager in one failed election campaign in 2000 hadn't been his opponent's wife, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, because that simple bit of trivia is what generated the NYT coverage, and the NYT coverage is all that makes this interesting. Beyond that, all coverage appears very local. Delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The man offered to pose in playgirl magazine in 1996 during his first campaign against Mr. Wynn. This made National news in 1996 and was even worldwide according to a Google search. Then with the 2000 election he also made National news for having Mr. Wynn's wife as campaign manager. The article from viewing ask.com has been on wikipedia for a number of years and is notable and noteworthy. WidgetMidget (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)— WidgetMidget (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perennial candidate who is covered each time he runs, therefore not a BLP1E candidate. NYT article is hilarious and of course an excellent reliable source demonstrating notability outside of his local district. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets general notability guidelines for the playgirl and wife campaign manager events. Here's another source that can be used San Jose Mercury News article. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially his claim to fame is a single event. Aside from that, he appears to have never held office and WP:POLITICIAN is pretty clear that candidates for offices are not notable for being candidates. Delete, or redirect to the appropriate election page. Syrthiss (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be kept because the subject has more than one notable action contrary to what the above editor has stated. The first international event was the Playgirl event which I may add to the article. It offended many Republicans in his state from published accounts but the man was on Hard Copy and the BBC and other national news media in 1996 and then in 2000 he was on the Today Show as well as the Daily Show and other National news outlets. I agree that he does get news media each time he runs as stated above. With the fact that he is a Scientist first and not specifically a politician the Wikipedia notability standard should remain. Just an observation. Badpuppy99 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)— Badpuppy99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The comment above says that he is a scientist first, but no evidence of notability as a scientist has been presented. This man's only notoriety arises from being a serial losing political candidate, and from allied stunts like offering to pose in Playgirl. Per WP:POLITICIAN, that is not enough. That clause is there to stop Wikipedia being used as a campaign tool and, from the number of SPAs concerned with posting and defending this article, that is what is going on here. I concede that enough lost elections and enough stunts might provide Screaming Lord Sutch-type notability, but Kimble is not there yet. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN. The linked NYT and Cumberland Times newspaper articles don't provide enough nontrivial coverage of the subject (rather than his opponent's ex-wife) to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sailsbystars. He's a 7-time Congressional candidate, including 4 times where he won the nomination. Definitely not a case of WP:BLP1E, because he was involved in several distinct notable elections. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The principal interest in having an article on Wikipedia appears to come from his campaign. He's not a politician, until he's elected (which on present evidence will be somewhat after the heat death of the universe he's an academic that falls well below WP:PROF. We already deleted this article, written by a WP:SPA, and it was swiftly re-created by another WP:SPA, and the deletion review was from an anon, also with no other activity. But the reason for deletion is not the blatant astroturfing it's the lack of any non-trivial independent reliable sources about the subject. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT is "trivial"? Collect (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial" in this context refers to the depth of coverage of the subject rather than to the respectibility of the publisher. The NYT article says only that he's white, that before this contest he was a two-time loser, that he offered to pose for Playgirl, and that he hired his opponent's wife. It's a very short article and it's mostly about other things (what this says about the opponent's marriage). So what it says about the subject is more than zero but it comes across to me as not very deep or detailed coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYT is not trivial and we must not only look at the article because of the evident notability that is present but the individuals who deleted the article in what appears to be a rather prejudicial deletion. In articles that I have read concerning the man it is stated that he has "Researched hormonal rage syndrome and the similarities between humans and animals". There also seems to be an undercurrent of animosity from certain individuals who are not acting with impartiality or reason. The above statement and the Playgirl incident and having Wynn's wife clearly meet notability guidelines and just because someone has only posted about one or two subjects does not make them less credible. Having friends agree with deletion also looks bad and we do have to remember that in 2007 the original and different article was deleted with only three people voting. 69.243.59.171 (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC) )— 69.243.59.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Delete - I accept that perennial political candidates, even perpetually unsuccessful ones, can become notable through their sheer persistence (or rather, news coverage of it). But I don't think this one's reached that stage yet. There is some significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources, but it doesn't seem to me that there's enough to pass the WP:BIO guideline. Robofish (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the NYT article is not enough, but the other sources (including the San Jose Mercury News) would certainly seem to put this over the top. It's pretty clear he passes WP:N for the wide range of coverage of two events (playgirl, hiring his opponent's wife) so not a BLP1E Hobit (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also note (as some delete !voters have also done) that not passing WP:POLITICIAN doesn't prevent him from getting an article under WP:N's umbrella. The Washington Post has coverage of his views and stances, so we have sources to write an article that is more than just "he did these two things". Hobit (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. BLP1E applies also. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the one event here? I'm seeing at least 2 distinct ones... Hobit (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This editor named Guy clearly has it in for the article and it is obvious that the article should not be removed. The result of the deletion review was Keep and it should be kept. There are many items of interest such as the Playgirl incident and then the wife incident etc and not just one "single event" as some of the delete people have said erroneously. 151.196.186.65 (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)— 151.196.186.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep. There's a whole bunch written about this guy relating to the stunts he's pulled to try to get elected. In addition, after some digging I did locate some coverage of Kimble from before the whole Playgirl thing (see here). I know the man doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, but he does probably meet the WP:GNG. CHeers, everyone. lifebaka++ 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think he's notable enough for the number of times he's stood in the elections to very senior offices, and he will be known to many. Most of all, I think the article is of some value to Wikipedia Pi (Talk to me! ) 04:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silat Kalimah Panglima Tangkas

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

A non notable martial art with no reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article that fails to show notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I get a lot of hits when I google this, but I don't see independent sources that support notability. The article itself is unsourced and fails to give any good reasons why it's notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with previous comments. I found nothing to show this subject is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sakhavarz

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

I find four newspaper articles in the Toronto Star, two mentioning a competition where he was one of the judges and two for cartoon exhibitions where he was on the list. There appear to be no other matches in the GNews archives. I find few mentions in books (GBooks). None of these would appear to unambiguously be a source that demonstrates notability sufficient against the specific criteria of WP:ARTIST such as permanent exhibition or notable awards. The article has been flagged as an unsourced BLP for a year and a half and rather than adding these weak sources I am raising the article for wider discussion as I believe this marginal case falls short of encyclopaedic notability. Fæ (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has verifiably had his work included in the 1990 "Birds in Art" exhibition at the Leigh Yawkey Woodson Art Museum as shown by this show guide. And there is google news results mentioned by the nominator. However, these are insufficient to meet the general notability guidelines or the one specific to artists. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article content suggests a possibly notable career in Iran, so it would help us to find sources if someone could tell us how his name is written in Persian. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Persian آلن سخاورز , Low G hit Persian search result, unsourced BLP. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Silver

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

Some hints to sources have been given, but the easily accessible sources such as IMDB don't show Ms. Silver meets notability for actors. Specifically, she has done some bit parts, she is listed as having a small part in a Broadway show ("rainbow jones") that was open for one night. tedder (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A followup, I dug out the NYTimes article. It mentions Ms. Silver once. Admittedly, it's a bright point in the article, as it calls the show utter dross but names Silver and a fellow actor the highlights. This is not the sort of coverage that demonstrates the depth of coverage per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. ttonyb (talk) 23:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I actually saw Silver in Grease many years ago. Very funny. There were several reviews that were excellent in Silvers' behalf. Also, the teaching and the service it represents is valid. The work appears to have influenced many people positively over a period of many years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 (talk • contribs) — 64.183.42.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak Keep - The article lists several references from reliable sources, but none of them that I can access appears to be primarily about the subject of this article. I would say flag it for clean up, and expansion, and if the article can be improved to establish notability then that would be great; this all falls under WP:TIND. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RCLC, I've gone through the sources that are fully cited. If you look at the notes, they barely qualify as relevant to Silver, let alone discussing her. Email me and I might be able to point you at one or two of them. tedder (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable actress, no reliable sources to prove any notability whatsoever. Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Copperwheat

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

Unremarkable person, does not assert notability UKWikiGuy (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete 1 gnews hit says it all. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage in reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mise (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has never been improved since its creation. The band's only claim to fame is coming in second in 2002 in a competition that's not really a major music award. The sources mentioned in the previous AFD (result: no consensus) are all dead links now. Doubtful that this band still exists, and it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC in any case. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations to demonstrate any notabillity. Since none have ever been added to the article despite two goes through AfD, it's a pretty safe bet they aren't going to materialise now. Was only ever a marginal candidate for WP:MUSIC anyway as they didn't win the award and it's not a major award anyway.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC) ~~Weak delete~~. Some coverage exists (see below) but it's debateable whether it is sufficient to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Weak Keep.--Michig (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the two sources from the previous afd (the links may be dead but the print articles they were a copy of still exist) there is an album review in Randall, Colin (12 July 2003), "Arts - Staying in CDs.", The Daily Telegraph and an article "Enjoy Celtic night with Irish boy band", Western Gazette, 17 March 2005. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph review is shared with another band and only states this about Mise: "Mise, full of the gusto that took them to the finals of last year's BBC Young Folk Awards, are more adventurous if less elegant. They include a rumbustious medley triggered by Faure's Pavane, a sprinkling of self-compositions and a guest slot for the gifted young Manchester fiddler Emma Sweeney, cousin of Liam and Noel Gallagher. There is little here to revolutionise traditional music and its offshoots, but ample to reinforce the growing reputations of both bands". The Irish Echo article is archived here and is more substantial. I couldn't find the Newham Recorder article online. If the Western Gazette article is genuinely significant coverage it might sway me towards a keep - if you could give an indication of the type/size of article it would be useful.--Michig (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

281 words, ~2/3 - 3/4 about them. Who's in the band, what instruments and music they play, "Mise features five men in their 20s who have a wealth of talent and experience having performed worldwide at many of the major Celtic festivals.", an announcement of "A Celebration of Irishness" where they are the main attraction. What made me say keep last time was in part based on the fact that the Irish Echo piece is from outside Great Britain, making their coverage go beyond local. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reading the article, and then the first Afd result I honestly see no reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronghorn (band)

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

Does not pass WP:Band. The given references show that this is a small local band that sells its music through its own Myspace page. I can find no independent sources that show this band has ever charted or gained any kind of notability outside of its own home geographical location. Prod was contested with the comment “found in both bbc and telegraph as well as others, have also performed in Holland more than once - thus not 100% local”, however the references amount to nothing more than listing that the band will be performing at a local festival, which does not qualify as significant coverage. Berone (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Berone (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:BAND notabillity criteria. Citations are just lists of performance dates which are explicitly excluded from that criteria (BBC ref is dead)--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the BBC link has died, is no refection of the band. If we deleted every article because the links died then there would be a lot of deletions. Although they may play mainly local, they have played at several festivals in the Netherlands, and they often play at the Glastonbury Festival (which is no small event). They also play a key role in organising another large festival - unfortunately that's seems to be unusual for a band, so there's no useful criteria one can hang that aspect on to. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the BBC link is dead is relevent because it was quoted when the prod was taken out. All you say could be true, but just playing at festivals is not in and of itself notable per WP:BAND and none of the citations present demonstrate notabillty.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage to either establish notability or have sufficient verifiable content to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sergej Andreevski

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

Lack of citations and content. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citations, one of the links is dead, the other doesn't seem to have any content.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing there to go on...Modernist (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Nothing there now, but Google and Google news results show some media coverage, which may be enough to justify notability. JNW (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. TheMike •^{Leave me a message!} 10:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC) (Non admin closure)[reply]

Nikola Martinoski

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

Lack of citations Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I would agree with Nipsonanomhmata on the stub articles nominated above, "lack of citations" does not appear to apply in this case. [15]. Where there are citations, the issue becomes whether there is (a) an assertion of notability within the article and (b) an assertion supported by reliable, independent and verifiable sources. In any case, the issue on topics is "lack of notability"-- and there is no lack of notability on Nikola Martinoski. [16]. It's always a good idea to be certain before making a nomination-- it's a lot quicker to Google than it is to nominate an article. Mandsford 16:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lack of notability ^^ in English. And isn't that what matters for English Wikipedia? Yakushima (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have a "notability in English" policy. The English language Wikipedia doesn't confine itself to people, places and things that are popular in English-speaking nations, and if that was the criterion for "what matters", then it wouldn't be Wikipedia. Mandsford 19:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but translations should be provided for english readers on request, especially if the whole article is hung from that one cite--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep needs a ref improve (which it already has a tag for) but from the citations provided I think Notabillty is demonstrated.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Copious returns off a Google search, just in English. Seems to be a recognized master artist of Macedonia, with extensive museum placements of his work. Biography of a historical figure (1903-1973), not a spammy self-promotional piece of a current working artist. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 10:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Loyalty Islands earthquake

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

Non-notable earthquake. There was no damage, no casualties, and no tsunami. Diego Grez (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, non-event.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, standard NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the above, I agree that it is NOTNEWS. If there were no major injuries or damage I can't really see what happened that is of significance. Earthquakes take place every day, and the only reference is a list of all earthquakes, which shows many occuring each dayPi (Talk to me! ) 04:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Right (United Kingdom)

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

Original research - no sources available to support use of this term. TFD (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Comment. This article is apparently based largely on this 2004 article from the Weekly Standard. Most of the "original research" here may be in the choice of a title. No opinion yet as to whether this should be kept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this phrase is used to describe those people, or indeed that those people are a cohesive enough group to need a distinct name. Fails WP:OR--ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is very much a dictionary definition as it sits. Ideally it should be part of a broad article Conservatism in the United Kingdom, equivalent to Conservatism in the United States. Unfortunately, we have the latter but not the former. I would suggest that the author rename this piece and expand the coverage. As it sits, deletion seems harsh but more or less inevitable. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That particular phrase wouldn't really be used in the UK because of potential confusion with the Conservative Party (UK), which is the same context that 'conservative' is being used here, i.e. a member or supporter of the party rather than a person of a particular ideology. Looking at thier article, I would suggest that if this were to live anywhere it would be here Conservative_Party_(UK)#Party_factions, but reading that it looks like 'Traditional Conservative' is used in much the same way as this phrase, but with much greater depth in that article, so other than a non-notable name there's nothing much to merge really--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. There is no such categorisation in UK political history. The article describes very thinly some traditional centre-right views in post-War Britain and has no encyclopedic value. MLA (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Rasool Kashmiri

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

No evidence meets notability criteria at WP:PEOPLE. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No sources are apparent. Could article's supporters say what is basis for notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Usual gsearches didn't turn up anything, article itself has no apparent sourcing. Ray^Talk 21:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then as no sources have appeared. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. No deletion !votes but insufficient participation. This therefore counts as a PROD deletion and restoration may be permitted on simple request at WP:REFUND. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tochukwu Ipere

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

Former BLP PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Although one source has now been added it, like the references listed, appears to be self-published. The article also appears to be an autobiography. role^player 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Amsaim (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When you compare this Afd with another BLP Afd (e.g. Melody Green), then one cannot but feel that something fishy must be going on here. Let's briefly compare these 2 BLP articles: in the case of Melody Green (widow of Keith Green), author of several books,^[1]^[2] a woman who is mentioned all over the internet, of whom scores of reputable newspapers and magazines have written about (thus fulfilling WP:GNG), a woman who has appeared several times on US & international radio & tv stations, the woman who co-wrote the popular Christian hymn "There is a Redeemer" - this very article of Melody Green was suddenly dumped into Afd on 21 November 2010, and exactly 7 (seven) days later on 28 November 2010 an admin deleted the article because 2 (two) editors voiced their *Delete* recommendation. Compare this with the Tochukwu Ipere article, a person who is not known in Nigeria or outside of Nigeria, of whom there are no relevant or reliable sources available, an article which does not establish notability via WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR - this article which ought to have been deleted long ago, has now been relisted twice, thus extending the Afd to 21 (twenty one) days. One wonders why Melody Green's article, a clearly notable person, got deleted within 7 days (with 2 delete recommendations), and this non-notable article continues to waste Wikipedia's server bandwidth for 21 days? Could the admin who is responsible for this relisting, please stop relisting this non-notable article and go ahead and delete the article? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Green, Melody; Hazard, David (1989). No Compromise: The Life Story of Keith Green. Harvest House Publishers. ISBN 978-159555-164-1.
^ Green, Melody; Green, Keith (2001). Make my life a prayer. Harvest House Publishers. ISBN 9780736909495.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fertitta

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

Fails to meet the requirements at WP:Music. An extensive search has yielded no reliable independent sources. As this article already has an impressive speedy deletion log, the closing admin may want to block future recreation of this article if the decision here is to delete. 4meter4 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is absolutely nothing on him anywhere in reliable independent sources, apart from a brief mention of him in the Cirque du Soleil 2002 tour.[17]. The rest of the "coverage" is all from him (self-published bios, social networking sites, etc.) and/or his management. The roles he "premiered" were 10 minute snatches in a non-notable competition for new operas [18] in a work by by a non-notable composer. Note this person is not to be confused with Robert Fertitta, the organist and Associate Professor Emeritus of Music at the State University of New York. Voceditenore (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usually I struggle for keep, but here I don't see any relevance. I would rather like to see an article about his namesake mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet any guidelines for keeping.--Smerus (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Jui-chuan

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

No real assertion of notability in this article. The Chinese Wikipedia article does provide some more information, but even reading the material there, I still don't see where the notability is. Unless notability shown during the discussion, delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not get there on WP:Prof; can't comment on hip-hop. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I quote from the review, "best Taiwanese hip-hop album of the year. But considering the size of the field, I’m not sure how hard it would be to win such an honor." So much for any eminence in the music field (I did not exhaustively go through WP:MUSICBIO as I think common sense should prevail here). As for WP:PROF, no notability whatever. Ray^Talk 20:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Lone argument for deletion is sound but since the admin who relisted this twice didn't see sufficient consensus to delete I'm going to treat this as an expired PROD. I'll restore this article upon request Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow in Dreams

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

Non-notable album without any WP:RS to establish notability. The primary source given is a book that the musician himself paid to publish through notorious vanity press iUniverse. Qworty (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — lacks sufficient significant 3rd party coverage to meet general notability guidelines. Feezo (Talk) 08:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Springfield

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. can't see how an 18 year old who manages to get 1 gnews hit for their book passes notability. [19]. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable author. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete she's published the same number of books as me, good for her. Not notable. MLA (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete; no keep !votes but insufficient participation. This deletion therefore counts as a PROD and may be reversed on request. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection (Klymaxx album)

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

No reliable sources found. Allmusic has only a directory listing. Prod removed without comment by IP. Precedent is that compilation albums have to show standalone notability, which this does not — it never charted, it wasn't certified, wasn't reviewed, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is eerily familiar to the Scorpions article AfD'ed the other week. Same argument, no standalone notabillity, delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BluffBot

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

No references for years (one in article is simply linking to the product site). It gets plenty of casual mentions on forums, but like this Afd for a similar product there aren't any reliable sources that cover this. Also most casual references just cover it as one of several similar bots. Contrast with Polaris_(poker_bot) which has several references. 2005 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable product. Advertisement. MLA (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Cinema

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

Can't find any evidence of notability. I'd do a redirect to the shopping centre but the problem is that the title itself isn't unique to this cinema. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The largest cinema in Hong Kong, one of the major movie-making cities of the world, seems notable to me. An independent source is already in the article and there seem to be sufficient additional sources to support the article.[20][21][22][23][24][25]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it currently stands, but if someone actually creates an article which demonstrates notability based on the sources found by Arxiloxos, then Move to The Grand Cinema, Hong Kong to avoid confusion. dramatic (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. After my initial comment, the source that was provided in the article was deleted, along with some of the content that went to its notability. I've restored that, added more, and added five sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Variety and The Hollywood Reporter think it's notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alona Elkayam

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

no indication of meeting WP:notability guidelines. Lots of unsourced claims but very little on google. Only thing that google shows is she writes for the Huffington Post. Cannot verify webby award or national press club award. Claims to have been written about in the Wall street journal cannot be verified. noq (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - per reference which points to notabilty even though its just one source.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reference doe not point to notability - it is just an article by her - not about her. noq (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 gnews hits. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taro Aizu

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

I find no matches in either variation of the name Aizu Tarō in GBooks, GScholar or GNews and no matches to the book "The Lovely Earth" being published in the USA. It seems unlikely that WP:AUTHOR will be addressed in the near future. PROD swiftly deleted so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note-the tag keeps being removed.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010 Minnesota-Wisconsin Flood

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

Meager stub on non-notable weather event. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 04:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most floods, as with most snowstorms, forest fires or days with high winds, wouldn't pass WP:EVENT. Mandsford 20:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I disagree with Mandsford's broad statement. It the present time, the article shows little independent national-level coverage. If this is all that can be found then it should be deleted. However, I think there's great potential on this article which hasn't been tapped. The main author hasn't been notified to be given a chance to rectify, so I'll contact him/her. Record flooding in an area probably means it's notable long term because it would have caused notable events. Royal broil 13:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and struck previous neutral. There is plenty of reliable sources of various types. Good job, Orlady! Royal broil 05:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was an unusual flooding event that caused significant disruption in the region and is a source of some scientific interest. I've added two sources (and some more sourced information) to the article. More sources exist. The brief and vague nature of the article should not be misinterpreted as indicating nonnotability. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added are primary and constitute Original Research, please read WP:PSTS. Abductive (reasoning) 21:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:PSTS and tell us what you believe it means. Most people wouldn't consider reports from the National Weather Service and the University of Minnesota to be original research. Mandsford 22:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course report on the event from the National Weather Service is primary. The report on the weather event from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group reads like a primary source. It says that the rain was the heaviest since 2007, hardly a marker of notability. None of the sources in the article or that I found say anything more than "it rained a lot". According to the WP:Notability (events) guideline, an event is notable if it has Lasting Effects, Geographical Scope, Depth of Coverage, Duration of Coverage, Diversity of Sources and not Routine Coverage. This event fails all these tests. Abductive (reasoning) 23:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A personal journal written by the storm would be a primary source, but storms can't keep personal journals. Records from river gauges and eyewitness accounts by residents of flooded areas would also be primary sources. A retrospective synopsis of the storm by the National Weather Service, written sometime after the storm ended, is not a primary source. Similarly, a retrospective analysis by a state climatology office is not a primary source. And, yes, the state report does say that this was the "largest flood event to hit southern Minnesota since" 2007, but it also says that an area of more than 5000 square miles received rainfall in excess of the 100-year-event and that it was the only time on record (i.e., since 1893) that the Mississippi River exceeded flood stage in autumn. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC) And for what it's worth, that 2007 flooding event to which this is compared was a major flooding event that has a thorough article: 2007 Midwest flooding. --Orlady (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People who consider the National Weather Service and state climatology offices to be too closely associated with the topic of weather might be relieved to know that the article now also cites the Associated Press (as published by Fox News) as a source. --Orlady (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the storm had national coverage and was in many newspapers-thank you-RFD (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis (baseball)

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

I'm expecting controversy on this one. Technically, he did play in a major league baseball game so he passes the guidelines. However, the fact that we don't even know his full name irks me. Should we really be adding ones where baseball scholars have never been able to find the guy's name? Maybe I'm wrong, but worth discussion. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow. Obviously anyone who has ever played in major league sports is going to be recorded, but an article should have something to say about the person beyond the statistics of the game. Borock (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment I have never created an article for these "nameless" last-namers because I didn't think it was appropriate considering the lack of any personal information to form a "biography" on the person. I will grant though, that besides places and dates of birth and deaths, there isn't much more information on many of the men who played during this era.Neonblak ^talk - 15:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find anything in WP:BIO that specifically excludes someone based on the lack of a full name. In the different guidelines, is says a full name "should be included, if known...". In this case, we know a last name and where he was born, plus we have his record establishing his notability. I think this will need several points of view.Neonblak ^talk - 15:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep WP:ATHLETE presumes notability, and to overcome that burden, one would essentially have to show that the subject has escaped notice. Not surprisingly, a major league pitcher who allowed 20 runs to score in three innings has gained notoriety. This person figures negatively and prominently in "one of the highest scoring games in baseball history" [26] and as a young man "whose first name mercifully remains unknown" [27]. He's more notable, as we define it, then most of his teammates would be without the presumption. Mandsford 21:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E, it sounds like the game should have an article, and not the person. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you mean WP:BIO1E? Seeing that he played in 1890, I doubt he is still living... Jenks24 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1890 Buffalo Bisons season, allowing 20 runs in three innings has to be some kind of record, but he mostly fails WP:V if we don't know his entire name. Secret ^account 00:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any verifiability problem, in that it's verifiable that there was a person, listed in game accounts as "Lewis" and that he pitched on that day with certain results. Major league player registers for baseball and for pro football include everyone known to have played in a major league game, even if the first name is unknown [28]. Mandsford 05:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS this is just a bunch of statistics. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, we should have articles even when we don't know the athlete's full name, as long as he was a top-level performer. For the initial debate on this question (and its consensus, with which I agree), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the presumption that all major league players are notable... though I am creating pages for lots of the 19th century players I have refrained from creating articles on the players whose names arent known... however, I'm not going to push for deletion if someone else creates one. Spanneraol (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though we only know his first name, our notability guidelines specify one game of MLB experience as an automatic qualifier. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and added more to the article so that there's more than just Lewis's stats. History is filled with mysteries, including persons for whose full names are lost to history. Anyone who has ever tried to trace their ancestry has run into that problem, and there's no reason to be irked by it. Mandsford 21:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Played in the big leagues. Is article worthy. Alex (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MLB players are notable, all 3 million of them or however many have suited up over the years. MLA (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That raised an interesting question. According to this there have been 17,498 so far in the North American majors since 1876. Mandsford 00:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that number includes the National Association, so it's since 1871. Adam Penale (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, thanks. Mandsford 15:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Major League Baseball players are notable. WP:IDONTKNOWIT as far as his last name goes, is no excuse to delete it. I'm not about to set a slippery slope precedent for deletion today. First Lewis, then players that played only one game, then people that played only one season, then non all-stars... fuck this nonsense. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic failure

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

No independent sources for this vague concept, so the article is full of original research. None of the "examples" provided is sourced, they are simply guesses on the part of editors who are offering their own interpretation of the article's subject. I doubt this can ever be adequately sourced or rescued from its current state. Removing all the unsourced examples, and reducing this to a stub will not even work, because "heroic failure" itself is not defined with any credible source. Delete as unsalvagable OR. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good try, but does not quite establish notability with a list of examples. Borock (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep--Article is referenced to two books about the concept, which also has significant ghits and Google book hits as well, including "Heroic failure in Frederick the Great" etc.Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt that any of those books would be enough to establish notability, as none of them actually offer a definition of what "heroic failure" actually is. What we have here are books which use the phrase in the title or subtitle, journal articles which use the phrase, etc. All this proves is that the phrase is used without any agreed upon definition. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (or possibly redirect to underdog (competition). The two are not quite the same; underdog is appropriate to describe the '69 Mets, but there's something unsettling about applying that word to, say, the defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto. The article dates from the "f*** sources" days, though it's not beyond saving, and there are plenty of sources available [29]. It'll be ironic (or poetic) if someone does improve the article and then it gets deleted anyway. Mandsford 21:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is wrong. A heroic failure is not necessarily a person or group, it could be the action itself. 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism Kuguar03 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "neo" in neologism means "new", and this one dates back to the 19th century, so it's about as new as a hoop skirt. Mandsford 22:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cite for 19th century use? Thanks. Kuguar03 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[30]. You're welcoome. Mandsford 00:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to actually look at what you're linking before you link it.

Kuguar03 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only when it's important to the discussion at hand. Whether it does or doesn't date back to the 19th century (or even the 20th) isn't relevant to notability. While it's not a neologism in the sense of a recently coined term, there are plenty of old terms that were never popular enough to become notable. Consensus so far is that the article hasn't established notability, no matter how far back the term goes. Mandsford 15:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. In my culture it is Glorious Failure but lacking references and not encyclopedic. MLA (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purp & Patron: The Hangover

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Purp & Patron: The Hangover

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS as a mixtape with not enough coverage in reliable sources to warent own article. STATic message me! 04:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mixtapes should fail notability tests in most cases. Just because someone notable does something, it does not necessarily imply that that something is itself notable. MLA (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. WP:SNOW. And leaving this open any longer would just provide further opportunity for irrelevant flooding of the discussion and unfounded accusations by the article's author. KnightofZion (talk) should take a look at other AFDs to see what modes of discourse (and formatting) is standard and acceptable here. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keir H. Stahlsmith

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Keir H. Stahlsmith

Keir H. Stahlsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

Contested speedy. Google search reveals few links, mostly to such sites as Facebook, Amazon, and pipl. In addition, I would note that Keir Stahlsmith‎ was repeatedly deleted almost three years ago, and was eventually salted; at least one of those article creations was by the creator of the current article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Recreation of previously deleted material. This new incarnation should probably be salted as well. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this spelling A spot-check of the "references" reveals that most do not contain the name of this soldier. Some of the claims are furthermore obviously false (planned and executed 250,000 missions during 5 years of service?! That's one every 30 minutes, respectable...), and a clear criterion under which he should be in an encyclopedia I cannot find. "Excellent soldier" is not sufficient. --Pgallert (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the kind of junk that ends up in these nominations, and this bio, Keir H. Stahlsmith is well-cited for historical value. The last one was made by someone else who didn't know what they were doing, and passed the project over to me. Since he worked in a classified environment, all you will get are personal pages like social networks if you only Google. Encyclopedic material should have more value than just being found on a Google search. The historical, military relevance of modern aerial warfare should be considered before purging a valuable piece of history. Please wait until all verifiable records are in hand, and uploaded, before making a snap decision. His Social Security number is on many of these records, and needs to be protected carefully before they are uploaded.

Thank you for giving this more time for proper reflection. Take care.

KnightofZion (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keir H Stahlsmith Military EPR 2009.pdf Please review.
Keir H. Stahlsmith, Database Manager, AF Form 910, U.S. National Archives Military Service Records, September 2009.

Added one pertinent military record demonstrating top performance in all cited areas of air combat; Theater Battle Management Core Systems, Air Tasking Orders, Database Management, technical work, and expertize. Please consider this significant data as a salute to history, the U.S. Air Force, and the exceptional work of Keir H. Stahlsmith. This is just one document of many that can be cited in the near future. Thank you for your considerations.
KnightofZion (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[of sources] according to Wikipedia should be satisfied with a federal document, declassified for the relevance of the topic and context of the subject. Thank you.KnightofZion (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please activate the previously deleted Wikipedia page, Keir Stahlsmith so it can be properly linked to this one. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightofZion (talk • contribs) 01:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally Negligent, Misleading, and False Statements Don't make things up about true and verifiable statements, Pgallert. All you did was search for the name of the subject in a few sources? Please regard the full context of the sources, as the name of the subject (just like any government cleared citizen) would not be typical of a cursory glance. Air Operations are continual, and it's 500,000 processed missions (to include flown sorties and air drops), in under 3.5 years, which is still exceptionally rare, as Keir H. Stahlsmith held a staff position in under 4 years; also, Keir H. Stahlsmith was not a "soldier" but an Airman.

Do your research before you make a fallacious argument. The point of this article is to express that the Database Manager executes every mission and sortie (everything that flies) in the entire Middle East (USAFCENT and CENTCOM), AOR (Area of Responsibility), which covers 79 coalition countries. The Air Tasking Order "Execution" takes place in the "Air Operations Center" and the Air Operations Database Manager is the only one in the war, responsible for the accuracy and timeliness of all flown missions. Check your sources, and please, again, don't make fallacious arguments on subjects you are not learned on. Thank you.

RE: "Some of the claims are furthermore obviously false (planned and executed 250,000 missions during 5 years of service?! That's one every 30 minutes, respectable"

"Excellent soldier" is not the argument. An example of modern aerial warfare in action and its impact using modern technological and scientific advances in theater war, is the argument. How many people know what the function of the Air Operations Database really is, or its crucial role in the air war? This historical reference is designed to impart unclassified material to the world in regard to an historical change in the way "decentralized execution" takes place. Also, it's not "one every 30 minutes," it's about 1,200 missions and sorties flying, or more, on average, every ATO period, every day. Please check the sources again, as you clearly haven't. I will report you if you for vandalism and abuse if you delete this page after making such remarks. Thank you.

I'm certain this falls under "reasons not to delete a page" based on sheer bias or lacking expertise in the subject. Please refer to [deletion policy.]

Also, in this policy is reference to reliability of sources:

Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

As of April 3, 2010, a proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies was established, requiring all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject. Once the article is tagged in this manner, the {{prod blp}} tag may not be removed until such a source is provided. If none is forthcoming the article may be deleted after 10 days. This does not affect any other deletion process.

Please review before making false statements: Reliability of sources according to Wikipedia should be satisfied with a federal document, declassified for the relevance of the topic and context of the subject. Thank you.KnightofZion (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keir H Stahlsmith Military EPR 2009.pdf KnightofZion (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised: Consequences of harassment Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing.

I understand this is a dispute, but recent arguments border more closely on harassment[[31]] and pretentious accusation, rather than legitimate reasoning and sound judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightofZion (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing:[[32]]

Repeatedly disregarding explanations for edits
Nomination by those who disregard the actual context, validity, and historical/encyclopedic relevance of the subject, not just the name or title found in a "Google" search, despite citations
Seemingly "campaigning" to alienate a productive editor/contributor
Exhausting a productive, rule-abiding contributor's patience

Signs of disruptive editing

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
Does not engage in consensus building:
- repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
- repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors may:

Shortcuts

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightofZion (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Fails WP:GNG including the more specific WP:BIO. There is no substantial, independent, secondary coverage of this person in independent sources, other than two short notes in local papers: (i) a picture of him at the age of 6 months with his mother after his older brother died in a tornado, [33] and (ii) a nice note when he finished basic training in the Air Force.[34] The citations which are being claimed as a basis for notability is not a "widely known and significant award or honor" and the claimed accomplishments are not " widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - the latter guideline footnoted to clarify that, to meet that criteria, it would need to be something extensively written about by experts in the relevant field. The airman got a good performance report. Are we going to have a Wikipedia article on every kid who got a gold star and an A+ in red ink on a paper?Fladrif (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt: at first, I thought this was a prank! Aside from the obvious recreation issues, this is a BLP that is not well-referenced: most of the cited refs don't mention this individual at all (raising COATRACK issues, seemingly trying to make this less a biography and more an article about aviation command and control operations), some are trivial mentions that offer no real biographical import, and the rest are not considered RS (mostly not independantly third party, a fitness report is certainly not even remotely reliable or even neutral); even if he really was involved in classified ops, there is no evidence that they existed or were notable, much less that he was integral to them. As I mentioned before, the article meanders from the subject to a strange aside regarding the films Ironman and Transformers... odd and irrelevant. There are obvious POV concerns, seeing as this thing smacks of puffery and disguising mundane tasks done as a part of his duties as notable achievements (I mean, c'mon, I've used TBMCS and GCCS and I'm not even an operations guy). And the meat of it is just plain notability: he fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:MILPEOPLE; absolutely nothing he has done sets him aside from all of the other airmen in his occupational specialty, no awards of note (his four are given to virtually every servicemember that survived a four year enlistment without getting thrown in the brig, and the "commemorative medals" are a joke that isn't even funny), no established innovation or significant contributions to military science or history, and of course, no recognition at all for what was an otherwise undistinguished career performing mundane duties. Lastly, slinging threats and Wikilawyering with anyone who disagrees isn't going to help. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Names of Germany. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology related to Germany

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

Started as a POV fork, very likely becomes a POV magnet, and is largely unsourced. Per consensus (see Talk:Germany (terminology)), the content of this article was merged into History of Germany. There was no consensus for the new spin-out. Cs32en Talk to me 03:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's poorly written, unsourced, and rarely used. This sort of article--on German naming patterns--belongs in the German Wikipedia.Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a topic of interest to English speakers. The article is informative, if a bit sprawling. Borock (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this page is highly identical to the previous Germany (terminology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (Germany (terminology)Germany (terminology) . 184.144.161.207 (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Names of Germany this is simply a Names of Germany article. 184.144.161.207 (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. It's a better title. Borock (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy ~~again~~ A lot of problems with this article, ~~although the author has clearly put a lot of work into it before posting it~~ . The explanation of terminology would work better in the form of a list rather than as a long narrative or an essay, and there's no sourcing. Looks like over 100 different italicized terms here, so it needs to go for navigability rather than prose. It may well be that a merge to Names of Germany would be a better fit if some of these terms aren't already in there. Mandsford 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's a fork of History of Germany with text of Germany (terminology) resplit off that page... 65.94.47.11 (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I'd just say userfy if someone wants to make this a stand alone article. I'm glad that this turns out to be a cut and paste and not to have been the work of one person, because it's a very inefficient way to present what should be a list of terms and explanations. There are some things that don't need long, boring, prosaic descriptions, and this is one of them. Mandsford 13:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per user 184. Interesting subject, bad title. MLA (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzy Short

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

This is fake. The date's don't match up. There is no indication that Nelson Mandela had a kid who was a rapper, no mention of Dizzy Short or Dizzy Swag anywhere other than Wikipedia. The picture was of Rakim who is not from South Africa. Links go to Rakim. This is not Rakim. There's a separate page already for Rakim and the info does not match up. Mac111213 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Sources are unrelated to the article, and the article is unrelated to reality. It is a BLP issue with regard to Nelson Mandela, however. Cs32en Talk to me 03:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Right now this satifies WP:CSD#A3 and WP:CSD#G10/WP:BLP. Recreation with quality sources that shows how she meets the relavent notability guidelines is acceptable. NW (Talk) 03:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Mai

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

This is an attack page, and should be speedy deleted, but my db-atack tag was removed. There are zero sources for the claims made in the article, and zero Google hits for the person associated with the movie titles. Corvus cornix_talk 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made sources for the page and both films mentioned in the article are small Vietnamese videos and may not be viewable on Google. YeaYourMom (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not. And even if the movies were real, which you have yet to prove, all that proves is that this person doesn't meet the WP:PORN notablity. Corvus cornix_talk 01:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that Excedia fertility pills exist, there are no reliable sources that the person she supposedly is in a relationship with exists. I can find nothing in Google for these people/things. Corvus cornix_talk 01:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not as an attack page, which is "a page . . . that exists primarily to disparage its subject"; I do not believe that YeaYourMom (talk · contribs) intentionally created this page to denigrate Mai. The article is written neutrally, but lacks reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability. Thus I say delete on grounds of notability. Goodvac (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do believe that it is an intentional attack page. And WP:BLP requires that we consider the damage that can be done to a person by claims made on Wikipedia. This AfD, if it were to be allowed to stand, which it will not, without reliable sources, will run 7 days. That gives plenty of time for this article to become the number one hit for the person with this name. That is a severe violation of the BLP requirements. Corvus cornix_talk 01:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:BLPREMOVE requires, I've removed any violating content. In the BLP section for attack pages, to be classified as such, pages must be "unsourced and negative in tone". While the article is unsourced, it certainly cannot be construed to be cutting down the subject.
Having done some more in-depth research, I conclude that it is fair to retag the article with speedy deletion criterion A7, as no reliable sources have surfaced to verify the existence of Mai. Goodvac (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this article I do not find it as an attack page whatsoever. I look it as an informational biography of Tina Mai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.202.250 (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So unsourced claims of a person being a porn actress is not an attack? Unsourced claims of her being in a relationship, with a person who is claimed to be Jewish with no reliable sources? No Google hits whatsoever to even prove that this person exists? In addition, this IP resolves to a site in Georgia, which is where this person supposedly lives/lived. Corvus cornix_talk 01:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable actress with lack of coverage. Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as attack page. If it is correct, it fails notability requirements anyway, so there is no reason to do anything but play safe and 'avoid harm' on the basis that there is no evidence that it isn't false. (67.166.202.250, note that the article has been edited to remove unsourced negative content) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why information from this article has been altered. If I am not mistaken stars of adult movies are accepted on this website. I believe this article is not as accurate as it's original version. YeaYourMom (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on anyone or anything aren't accepted, unless they are based on verifiable sources. Yes, there are articles on porn stars, but there are specific criteria regarding notability for these, and a 'star' we cannot even find with Google certainly won't meet them: see WP:PORNSTAR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that's the link I was looking for. I tried PORNACTOR, but that was a redlink. :) Corvus cornix_talk 02:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Clearly not an attack page. It seems some people are trying to apply their personal POVs about the nature of pornography as somehow intrinsically negative, while not reading the article in any detail or AGFing about the writing. That said, the individual fails to meet notability criteria. I will change my mind if sources can be presented. At present this fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal problems with pornography. What I do have a problem with is the violation of BLP when unsourced claims are made that a person is a porn actor. Corvus cornix_talk 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And an unsourced claim someone is a porn star is a BLP problem not an attack page. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for deletion under G10 states the article "may include libel, legal threats, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". Claiming someone is a porn star without including reliable sources falls under this criteria. I understand your contention that simply being a porn star does not = bad, however creating a page contending that the subject is a porn star without including any reliable sources for confirmation does fall within the definition of G10 deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 03:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to cite all of sources for my information, but sadly every time I did it was then altered once again. Honestly how is this supposed to be cited if it is continuously modified in such a manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.202.250 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not added any sources to the article. The article's creator, user:YeaYourMom, has added sources, though none of them reliable nor even apparently extant. Does that mean that you, the IP editor from Floyd County, Georgia , where Tina Mai went to high school, are YeaYourMom? Corvus cornix_talk 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not, technically, an "attack page", but without sources or specific details it's still defamation of anyone named "Tina Mai" who doesn't care to be called a porn star. Without sources for the importance of this individual, the article also fails speedy criterion A7. In any case, this is not the sort of article we should be retaining. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of this article was an attack page. It is now a one-sentence assertion with no sources whatsoever. If none are produced quickly, this must be speedy deleted as a BLP violation. Jonathunder (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing I have seen in the page's edit history looks like it can be verified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete' - there is no reason to keep this around while people discuss it. If sources appear (and they won't) it can be restored. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Uba

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTE Tentontunic (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:POLITICIAN, which states that "politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office..." are notable. As this article is about a state governor who did not appear to have been able to exercise the powers of his office, the "this will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices" point applies in this case. Although this would be considered an 'argument to avoid', I'm sure, deleting this would be like deleting an article on a state governor of the United States, as Uba is of the same political standing. Arctic Night 02:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, this politician appears to meet the general notability guideline, as he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - [35] (OK, this one might be less than 100% reliable, but it establishes notability...), [36][37][38] - however, I think WP:POLITICIAN is sufficient to establish notability here without having to default to the GNG. Arctic Night 02:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blank This article probably intends to describe Nnamdi Emmanuel Uba and should therefore be renamed. The article is now largely unsourced, though some Nigerian news sources seem to exist. As most of the article's content is unsourced and BLP-sensitive, the article should be (almost completely) blanked, and only text based on reliable sources should then be added. Cs32en Talk to me 04:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one's automatic. For the nominator's benefit, there's a lot more to notability than just what's in WP:NOTE, and WP:POLITICIAN is one of the many things that fall under the "subject specific guidelines" under "people". Plenty of sources out there [39]. Mandsford 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he easily passes WP:POLITICIAN. Nyttend (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin del Castillo

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

Only claim to fame are nominations to an apparently minor UK music award Technopat (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it please be possible to lift the deletion message on this article until Sunday? as i need a bit of time to complete my researches on this artist and draft the information I would like to add on him? thank you for your understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmourain (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was elected "Best Latin singer of the year 2010" in Sweden, and his song "She's the One" has been ranked on the top 10 in Colombia and Sweden during several months in 2010. His song "Ya No Puedo Amarte' and its video that was launched this month (January 2011) are being broadcasted on international radio and tv etc etc...I am about to add all this information on Robin Del Castillo's wikipedia article, which I believe all argue in favour of his claim to fame — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmourain (talk • contribs) 12:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deletion debates run for 7 days; given that it's Thursday, you should have plenty of time. If you require more than that 7 days, the article can be userfied to a draft page in your userspace, where you can continue to refine it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:MUSICBIO on accoint of his international touring to United Kingdom, Sweden, Colombia etc. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Bearian above. Bienfuxia (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems notable. --Monterey Bay (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. Seeming notable is not the same as being notable in WP. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 gnews hits. Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO had not received non trivial coverage of an international tour. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Even though Libstar has a point, I think that Bearian also has right when stating that he passes WP:MUSICBIO via his international touring. The tour points towards musical notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO says you need coverage of the touring. This is lacking. LibStar (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, we have here ourselves a problem with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle -- we can find many reliable sources of the nurmerous places he's toured internationally but without a single mention of the word "tour" anywhere on the Internet, and we can see the "tour" on his website, but we can not find both on the same web page. This musical artist must be tunneling through the Earth like a neutrino. Oh wait, maybe we can not get so stressed out about a musicial artist that we've never heard and forget about reading the rules too narrowly. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and according to you we need to relax criterion in order it to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Now that's stretching it. WP:IAR is a very weak argument I've seen for making it something notable when it does not clearly pass a notability criterion. It's a slippery slope that allows non notable subjects to get articles. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Kuangyi

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

Is this model truly notable? It doesn't looks like she's done much work at all. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment In checking the traditional and simplifed spelling of this individual's name, notability through meeting WP:GNG appears to be a possibility. The sources will require translation... but a demonstrable notability in China is fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Burrello

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

Since 2009, the page has been labeled as an orphan, not citing references, and may not meet the notability guideline. Artist had songs played on the Dr. Demento show and had one song covered on the The Muppet Show. The Dr. Deminto show was on roughly from 1970-2010 with "thousands" of artists. A check at the The Demented Music Database has only one song of Burrello's. Now excuse me why I try to get Fish Heads and Dead Puppies out of my head. Bgwhite (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:RS. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it may be possible to improve this article. This book from an academic publisher devotes four pages to his song "There's a New Sound", which was actually released 18 years before Barret Hansen became Dr. Demento. He also apparently had a career beyond that one song; if I can improve this article, I will. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I know I can improve this article. [40] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have edited the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent sources, wrote a song that reached #18 on the Billboard chart. Edward321 (talk) 14:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WAREZ-BB

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

Contested PROD. Article shows no sign of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there aren't any "independent reliable sources" that cover Ware-BB. Still, in my opinion this article should not be deleted yet. File sharing is a very important topic, and while there are many good articles on Wikipedia on BitTorrent and other P2P filesharing subjects, there is not much about "file sharing through http". Someone should try contacting a site like to torrentfreak and ask them to interview the admins of warez-bb. Quaber (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. File sharing is a very big part of the internet, and 'file sharing through http' using sites like warez-bb to index links to sites like rapidshare and megaupload is one of the most prevalent ways to do it. While wikipedia has many articles covering p2p filesharing (many torrent trackers have articles about them, and many client/server software for torrenting have articles about them too), there is almost no coverage of the web aspect of file sharing. This is why in my opinion there should be an article covering one of the biggest websites for distributing warez on the internet. I agree that right now this article isnt very good, but instead of deleting it the importance of this subject should be recognized and we should work to improve it. Quaber (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of reliable sourced indicating notability for this site means it fails notability. If reliable sources can be found, than an article on HTTP filesharing aggregators (as WAREZ-BB appears to be from Quaber's comment) - or whatever the appropriate term is - can be created. OSborn^arf_contribs. 22:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Children of Babylon

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

Concerns over notability. The notability seems to rely greatly on association with other musicians. I don't see any indication of awards or media recognition, and the article relies on a single reference. Levinge (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three albums released on Babygrande Records ([41]) passes WP:BAND criterion 5. Sufficient coverage exists to meet WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:BAND in in Jeffrey Melnick's book 9/11 culture: America under construction, Philadelphia Daily News, Gigwise.com, and plenty more on Google News behind paywalls.--Michig (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs work but clearly notable. Bienfuxia (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tapps Bandawe

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

Concerns over notability. Levinge (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am not at all an expert on Malawi, I think that the Nyasa Times website should be considered a reliable source for the popular music of that country. Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This article was nominated for deletion only few minutes after the article was created. That's called spamming and has nothing to do with honest concerns over notability. Julius Sahara (talk) 22:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is nothing to do with spamming. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am still trying to expand this article, I know this producer also had a song that played on the South African charts, but this was in the 1990's so internet sources may be few on this part of his life--MsTingaK (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs time to grow. Bienfuxia (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Willmett (Australian businessman)

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

fails WP:BIO. also WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NOTRESUME. looks suspiciously self promotion with many grand claims uncited in article. 3 gnews hits says something [42] around significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with cleanup for promotional tone, on strength of coverage in The Daily Telegraph as "first published Aboriginal business author." — Brianhe (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

simply being the first published Aboriginal business author is not enough for notability. He lacks significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar coverage in Courier-Mail ... seems to meet strict WP:AUTHOR criterion of multiple independent reviews. – Brianhe (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courier Mail is the same publisher as Daily Telegraph. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's just another accomplished person. He's energetic and able and has a nice smile and has built himself a nice career, like many many millions of other people. And that's it. The one thing that he could possibly hang notability on is that he wrote a book. But its a technical how-to book on a narrow subject. He is not a notable author. As the rest, really. He managed this project, he participated in that conference, he took this course, he gave consulting services to that group. There is nothing there. If he rates an article, half the people in my town rate articles. They have nice careers too. Looks like vanity, spam, and cruft to me. Herostratus (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Herostratus. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 03:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abaz Hoxha

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

Lack of citations and content. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author of the first Albanian Arts' Encyclopedia and of around 20 publications on Albanian arts. Very notable in the Albanian art field as an author. And... there are sources on him. One is already in the article. Didn't you see it Nipso? --Brunswick Dude (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the related Albanian wiki article doesn't have any sources and without being able to translate that single Albanian language ref (see WP:NOENG) there's nothing to establish notabillity here. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Translate provides this translation of the Albanian-language reference. This review of a book by the writer may also be useful. Here is a Google translation of the review. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasons given by the preceding editors and for Hoxha's personality importance. Btw, really a great job Eastmain! Empathictrust (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 03:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch MacDonald

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

Sources stem entirely from the time singer was on Canadian Idol. Singer has done literally nothing of note afterward, making this a WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was tempted with a weak keep as it could be argued they were briefly notable and to delete it recentism. But reading WP:BLP1E it's a clear delete.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator here. I'm somewhat confused by this nomination. WP:BLP1E applies to "low-profile" individuals which is not how we would usually view a singer who appeared on a nationally broadcast TV series for well over three months, and then continues to give media interviews two years later. Perhaps the nominator meant WP:BIO1E? With that I have some difficulty too, as it is a stretch to call it "one event" when it was twice-a-week TV appearances on what was at times Canada's most popular show, for three months, and was followed by a national tour for him and the others of the top three. But to me, the real test is to look to the sources: Do they cover him only in passing, in articles about the TV show? No, not at all. There are many newspaper articles that are primarily about him: taken together, there is decent coverage in the Vancouver Province, the National Post, CBC News, the Fort Frances Times, and the Cape Breton Post, among others. In addition to WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, I think it's not a stretch to argue that he also meets criteria #9 and #12. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~Community consensus~~ My belief is that runners-up on Idol and similar shows are not notable unless they have also accrued notability prior to or subsequent to the season they appeared in, just as not every actor to appear on a TV show is notable no matter how notable the show is. Notability is not inherited. No evidence here of notability independent to Idol. At the very least this should be merged to whatever our reality-show equivalent is of a "List of characters" article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be able to point me to that consensus? The consensus that I was aware of at the time I created the article was at WP:IDOL#Biographies of contestants: "For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show. Semi-finalists who are not otherwise notable are redirected to their season's article." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to being unaware of any runner-ups who have been kept who did not obtain subsequent notability. All the kept runner-ups I'm aware of went on to release albums, appear in film/TV, do concerts, make appearances et cetera, so as to maintain significant coverage well beyond the end of their season. I'd be assisted, and possibly educated, by being pointed to runner-ups with no non-Idol notability who have survived an AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, they were quite common, at least for a while, and the community consensus seemed fairly strong. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Murray, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Edwards (singer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sarver are some examples—these are finalists who did not even make the top 2, which MacDonald did. The AfDs seemed to hinge on them being finalists (and thus received sufficient coverage), and they were all kept at AfD. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I frankly cannot understand how those articles got kept, based on policy, but I have to concede that they did. I'll change my rationale above accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Michael Sarver seems like he can stay, since he has a charting album on a notable label. The others indeed seem like improper keeps. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to note that the nominator has gone ahead and re-nominated two of the three articles whose AfDs I mentioned above. That's his prerogative of course, but the problem is that the same distortion of BLP policy is invoked there that has been used here; I think these comments are accurate. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's received non-trivial coverage from multiple independent sources. Yes, the coverage is related to his appearance on the show. But, coverage is about him specifically, and coverage is by sources, such as the CBC, who are not directly connected to the show (not just promotional fluff by ctv). So, this article can be kept strictly on the general notability guideline. Therefore, it's not necessary to worry about the general consensus for finalists of the show. --Rob (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep runners-up on the terrible Idol franchise of shows are notable. MLA (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gap wedge

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

A Google test shows this is one of the least notable golf club types we have an article on. Redundant to wedge. Marcus Qwertyus 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Least notable" does not equal non-notable. Lack of any rationale for deletion leads me to believe this is a merge proposal. In which case the nomination should be withdrawn and a merge discussion started at an appropriate venue. _wjemather ^bigissue 00:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merger is not appropriate. Wedge is the general term, pitching wedge and sand wedge are specific clubs which (appropriately) have articles, as is the gap wedge, designed to fill the "gap" between the loft of these two clubs. AboutGolf.com has an article on gap wedges, a simple Google search will show you what they look like and where to buy them. Sourcing problems in this article, but a slam-dunk KEEP here... Carrite (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another article on gap wedges from the site 4Wedges.com. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And another discussion of gap wedges from golflink.com, which defines them as having a loft of from 49 to 54 degrees. Carrite (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Golf club. Golf is an extemely notable sport, and I would tend to think that that any club which has its own name and purpose could rate an article. And the article shows that there is something worthwhile to say about the entity. Herostratus (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wjemather — it's still a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. Moreover, Carrite has found multiple reliable sources discussing it, if you don't believe that it's notable already. Nyttend (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Payne

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

BLP of a non-notable person. Sources provided do not establish notability. First source is a blog, second source is a bio on Huffington Post's website because Erica writes blog entries on that site, third source is an article in which Erica is briefly quoted, but the article is not about Erica. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^confer 18:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep writting for the Huffington Post is fairly notable, and per GNG the article does not need to be about the subject in order to establish notabillity. A quick google search revealled quite a lot of refs (although oddly none in g-news), including TV appearances on Fox News, MSNBC and a few other news shows (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u7U04rKFzM and look at the linked vids). I think there is enough evidence of notabillity to keep.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thousands of people appear on TV but they're not all notable; likewise, there are dozens of contributors to HuffPo. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the points made by ThePaintedOne, and add that she founded one organization and co-founded another, each of them being notable enough for its own article. JamesMLane t c 04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with ThePaintedOne and others. Erica Payne is a voice of the liberal left and has been repeatedly featured on news channels, the Huffington Post and others. She is a force in the liberal community and founded political organizations.Lucy82891 —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingmonster

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

Clothing company. No sources to establish notability per WP:ORG. Sandstein 20:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article fails the general notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." While the number of search engine hits is usually not enough to establish that there aren't any independent RS out there, it is clear that there aren't any independent RS out there from scouring the first three pages of this Google search. Arctic Night 02:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll take Arctic Night's word for it. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mostly per Herostratus. Claims of meeting WP:EVENT are dubious. lifebaka++ 02:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Brittanee Drexel

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

news event of no lasting significance or notability Dlabtot (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might be an effect of the Disappeared profile on her, but there's a new round of coverage on Drexel's disappearance per a Google News search I just did. I see coverage in two national sources and in local news agencies outside of her hometown and Myrtle Beach. I've added FoxNews.com as a source for the new coverage. It looks like this meets WP:EVENT. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets WP:EVENT.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News is not a reliable source; it is an entertainment outlet. Nonetheless, this incident has generated ongoing news. Weak keep per WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could rename the article to Brittanee Drexel is still missing. Dlabtot (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an event worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. Doesn't contribute meaningfully to the sum of human knowledge. Isn't going to be noteworthy ten years from now. Does not meet WP:EVENT - doesn't have enduring significance of any kind, is not amenable to in-depth coverage (all there is to say, at root, is "a person disappeared"). Dragging Peter Brozowitz into it is probably not appreciated by Mr Brozowitz (this article is the #3 hit for Mr Brozowitz, will soon enough climb to #1 and stay there basically forever). Tabloid stuff. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL (and if you don't accept essays, NOTNEWS, point 4). People disappear all the time, and this is reported in the news all the time. No chance this event will ever develop the faintest historic significance. --Pgallert (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article deals with a situation that may be WP:MILL, I feel that having had segments devoted to it on two major television shows makes this notable. While a disappearance may be a common occurrence, I would ask how many appear on both Dr Phil and the Discovery Channel?Punkrocker1991 (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, missing persons are not uncommon and on their own usually have no real notability. Weak and sparse sources, for a 2009 incident that is telling. The TV coverage works in favour of a keep vote; however I get the impression they represent similar coverage to a crimewatch appearance in the UK; if that is the case it is not enough IMO. However, willing to be convinced otherwise. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Routine coverage of a disappearance.--TM 14:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete victims of serious crime are not necessarily notable, this case is sad but not one that stands the test of time already. MLA (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A Google News Archive search only brings up 120 articles. ^[1] It may have made the national news a few times, but it's more of a "Missing Teenager in Myrtle Beach" and then "Teenager Still Missing" than actual extensive coverage of every detail. Laladoodle92 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable - A new round of coverage on Drexel's disappearance per a Google News - meets WP:EVENT. Ret.Prof (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Herostratus's excellent summary. Standard NOTNEWS item. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per NOTNEWS and MILL. The news coverage is why I'm not too convinced though. Pi (Talk to me! ) 04:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Currie

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

Not exactly sure if this meets WP:ARTIST. Let's determine here. bender235 (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All nominators should read and apply WP:BEFORE before nominating. It is WP policy that they should also use an WP:RFC for gathering a consensus on an article, but you certainly are not the first to do otherwise. Anarchangel (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, WP:ARTIST is pretty strict - no way he meets it. If it was up to me I might liberalize it some, but even then he might not make it. He doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG even. Google is pretty damning: not counting this article and his own website, there are a whole bunch of people named Robert Currie who come up before he does. He's one of the five most notable Robert Curries, I guess. He needs to get some writeups in mainstream publications, or win an award, or something, before he rates an article, I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail WP:ARTIST. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ 'http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22brittanee+drexel%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives

[1] Green, Melody; Hazard, David (1989). No Compromise: The Life Story of Keith Green. Harvest House Publishers. ISBN 978-159555-164-1.

[2] Green, Melody; Green, Keith (2001). Make my life a prayer. Harvest House Publishers. ISBN 9780736909495.

[3] 'http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22brittanee+drexel%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Search+Archives

[1]

[2]

[1]