Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 17

< 16 May	18 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete per general consensus about the subject's inadequate notability. Any interested editor may request (on my user talk page) that the article be restored to their user-space or the incubator for rework. --Der yck C. 18:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Revit Wants (blog)

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

Delete. Non-notable blog. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be deleted. It is notable because it was referenced in a significant printed work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.197.130 (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely being in a book means that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Wikipedia:Notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by A.anon.anon (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — A.anon.anon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - One mention in a book is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single passing reference in a single book doesn't constitute significant coverage. I didn't find anything else.--SPhilbrick T 13:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. I suspect the author of the article knew that it was likely to be judged non-notable, since the article itself makes the pitch that it is notable! If a subject is notable, you demonstrate it via the citations, not by saying in the article "hey, look, this is a notable subject!" --MelanieN (talk) 02:48, 24 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Houri

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

Is not notable, as per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NOTRESUME. Boatimpeller (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 3 May 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, 9 May 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, Baseball Watcher 23:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but copyedit ruthlessly, probably reducing to a stub. Google News and Google Books show sufficient coverage to establish notability, including a section about him in Who Controls the Internet? by Jack L. Goldsmith and Tim Wu, published by Oxford University Press. Pburka (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to teh above, also covered in Code 2.0 by Lawrence Lessig. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 19 May 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, default to keep. Any editor may re-nominate this article for deletion if they deem so necessary. Der yck C. 19:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slammiversary IX

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

Contested WP:PROD, yet another future wrestling event; these keep being created WAY before they're notable. Future event; not yet notable; WP:CRYSTAL WP:V (same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best in the World) Chzz ► 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slammiversary. There is absolutely no information aside from venue and date. There is no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is where Wikipedia policies have flaws, when people who know nothing of the subject say articles are not notable enough. The article has not been worked on enough is the issue as most of the editors who know what to do have stopped working. Not to sound big-headed but that includes myself who does this off and on. The subject matter is notable, believe me as I have made several TNA PPVs Good Article quality and Lockdown (2008) a Featured Article as I was really the only editor who expanded TNA's stuff to good qualities with guidelines. The events are covered in reliable sources such as Slam Sports, PWTorch, Wrestling Observer, The Sun, and WrestleView to name just a few. Then include magazine and news reports due to promotion leading up to the event.--WillC 04:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article contains no references, and a search turns up none that I, and presumably the nominator, could find. If there are sources, by all means bring them forward. But I will point out that the article, as it stands right now contains no useful information; the nominator's statement that it is too soon for an article is more than reasonable given this. -- Whpq (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think the phrase due to promotion leading up to the event says it all, really. Chzz ► 08:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know if you all knew this but it's something called GOOGLE Google Simply google the word Slammiversary IX and tons of links on the noticeability is there hell it's on in-demand which is the biggest ppv provider in the united states Zanwifi (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Can you explain which of those represent reliable sources covering this subject in some depth? -- Whpq (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slammiversary. My reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment. 177.24.77.131 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slammiversary until the event occurs and/or third party sources are available. Nikki♥311 00:26, 17 May 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, Baseball Watcher 23:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slammiversary until the event occurs and/or third party sources are available. 189.98.101.128 (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No vote, but this event is due to happen on June 12, less than a month from now. If this is deleted and is resurrected after just a few days this discussion would've been pointless. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's happening in less than a month, why freaking delete it? Crisis.E X E 17:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the next TNA PPV coming up. No deletion is necessary/redirect at all. - Sir Pawridge talk contribs 15:31, 24 May 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 for inadequate notability and BLP concerns. --Der yck C. 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hallam

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

Disputed WP:PROD; no reason given for removal. Unreferenced WP:BLP of a "professional mod" with no good claims to notability. He's worked with some notable people, but notability is not inherited Pburka (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a young man in teh 80s Hallam was the most important dj/innovator on the mod/soul/rnb scene. lost touch with hm for ages then in 90s re-met him when he was running the very influential popcorn.vault of vibes nights at 100 club. his enthusiams and encouragement dragged people like mark perry and spizz out of retirement. has as much right to a page as anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.226.102 (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to satisfy WP:V or WP:GNG. Hut 8.5 12:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notabillity is not established per Wikipedia standards. --Dawn Bard (talk) 17:28, 24 May 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) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahram Kalhornia

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

Appears to be non-notable, as I cannot find sufficient RS coverage, having done a wp:before search. Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, بهرام کلهرنیا Farsi search [1] shows some quality but not enough to assert notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:14, 18 May 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) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iphone 5

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

Per ~~WP:CRYSTAL~~ WP:SPECULATION. Baseball Watcher 22:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Info: The article has been moved from Iphone 5 to iPhone 5, obeying a request in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=430458993#Uncontroversial_requests to move Iphone 5 to iPhone 5 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The IPhone 5 article is fully protected. Baseball Watcher 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apple have said nothing. All we have is a lot of speculation and rumour. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I might also add (using a crystal ball myself) that I bet we'll also have to salt it before we have enough info to create an article if and when any iPhone 5 is actually announced. Just a bit of precognition on my part. -- Atama頭 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I guess technically it is salted already. -- Atama頭 22:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "History: There is some talk about the iPhone 5. But nothing is certain, yet." Away it goes. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 17:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Planning for notable projects which get wide public notice in notable publications is notable. This is not speculative. I recall similar discussions with other Apple projects, and this seems to me an example of hiding our collective head in the sand. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until there is more reliable, third-party coverage on this upcoming, unconfirmed product. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant, unsourced, and speculative. Sorry. Finalius (Say what?) 00:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I was going to wait until I had a stronger case but I see someone found a way around the barrier. I copy-pasted my draftspace which outlines just a few of the major rumors. The rumors could go on for pages and pages but I was a little busy with Military History project stuff these past few weeks. P.S. Chrystal ball doesn't apply to rumors published by outside sources so don't mention it. I checked with the architect behind the proposal and he/she says it definitely doesn't apply. Marcus Qwertyus 01:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the iPhone article. It's just a compilation of various rumours that have been reported as rumours. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Info: The article has been moved from Iphone 5 to iPhone 5, obeying a request in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=430458993#Uncontroversial_requests to move Iphone 5 to iPhone 5 . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My understanding of the relevant policies is that a subject rife with rumor and innuendo may be eligible for an article if the rumors and innuendo are all propogated by reliable sources. This appears to be the case in this instance. --Pink Bull 21:11, 24 May 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 by Keegan. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to Fire A Musket in the Revolutionary War

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

Possible speedy, PROD was removed. The PROD concern was Wikipedia is not a how to. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear violation of WP:NOT#HOWTO, redundant to Musket#Operation. Doesn't strike me as very accurate either (did they really put the bayonet in the musket?!) Hut 8.5 21:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This isn't a serious article, it's somebody goofing to see how Wikipedia works, as nearly as I can tell. It's a content fork as well, per Hut above. Carrite (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G2; tagged as such. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the creator has a history of creating test pages. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a test page --Σ _☭^★ 04:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5 78.26 (talk) 04:49, 18 May 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 Litotes. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trope of Litotes

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

Already covered by Litotes. I am proposing to delete outright rather than redirect to Litotes, as "Trope of Litotes" does not seem a common name or likely search term for this topic. Most Google hits are mirrors/content farms/etc. of the article itself; the few that are not use the phrase but not as a name per se. (Analogously, if someone writes "The trope of the unreliable narrator appears in the following works..." on a web page somewhere, that doesn't mean we would make a redirect from "Trope of the Unreliable Narrator" to Unreliable narrator.) I am not proposing a merge as there is no information at Trope of Litotes which is not already covered by Litotes. Chuck (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect, the nominator suggested a merge anyway, not a delete, and could have done the redirected himself without discussion per WP:ATD, Sadads (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you have misread my nomination. I am explicitly not proposing a redirect and not proposing a merge, and give the reasons for preferring deletion over a redirect and/or merge in my nomination. Chuck (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The usage "trope of litotes" is not unheard of. As such it is a valid alternative term for the concept, and a redirect is appropriate. Redirects are cheap. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Chuck Carroll makes an excellent point about the rarity of the term, that said, it does exist, and as Whpq notes, redirects are cheap.--SPhilbrick T 13:52, 23 May 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 Diabetes mellitus type 1. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittle diabetes

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

Brittle diabetes is not a subtype of diabetes but rather a characterisation of its control. The current article tries to make it out as if it is a disease entity. The concept can easily be discussed in the context of glycemic control in other diabetes-related articles. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had no idea related articles (can) covered this. If some content can be salvaged for use there, fine by me. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "brittle diabetes" is a colloquialism that has not been formally defined (unlike "brittle asthma", which has formal diagnostic criteria). It just obscures poor control. (PMID 19649386 seems to make an attempt to define it formally, but that's the only thing I can find.) Most "brittle type 1s" have significant lifestyle issues. JFW | T@lk 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcr010 defines "brittle diabetes" as type 1 diabetes with recurrent DKA. It appears that there is no particular pathophysiological mechanism, and that it probably is not a distinct phenotype (as brittle often becomes non-brittle over time). I think this is all best dealt with on the type 1 page, and am prepared to merge the important content there. JFW | T@lk 06:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diabetes mellitus type 1 if anything useful can be salvaged. Otherwise, redirect. Possible search term. No need for an AfD here. -Atmoz (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~— and perhaps rename? There may be concern here for lengthening the Type I article. This article, Brittle diabetes, covers material that can be referred to from the Type I article, and can keep the Type I article from becoming too long. How about one of the other names, "labile diabetes"? Perhaps this is a better name for the article? This kind of article does not have to be a subtype per se. Any information that can stand alone notably in its own article is better off in its own article than cluttering and lengthening longer articles on the subject. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 02:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It also occurs to me that this term, "Brittle diabetes", applies to Type II sufferers as well as to victims of Type I. Merging this content into the Type I article might not be appropriate on this count.
- No, there is no source that supports the existence of "brittle type 2". Have you got evidence that the concept "labile diabetes" is in current use? All these facts should be discussed in context, which seems a good reason for lengthening other articles. By the way, people with diabetes are not "sufferers" or "victims". JFW | T@lk 08:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that last part to my neuropathies <g>. If the result of this discussion is that the concept of Brittle or Labile diabetes is not notable enough to warrant its own article, then it's probably not notable enough to merge into the Type I article. It was the brief notation in the subject article about the term's application to both Type I and II that I was addressing. JFW, I'll go with whatever you want to do on this. If it's notable enough to merge into Type I, I'm good with that. Whatever you want, because you appear to know a whole lot more about it than I do. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Type I article. Even if it's not used professionally, our readers will look for the term, and there is no harm in merging sourced material and redirecting it. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This information should be merged into "Diabetes mellitus type 1", perhaps into a "Classification" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:20, 23 May 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) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Messner

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

Non-notable porn site operator. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Iftelse (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced biography of a no-longer-living person, full of unsourced juicy gossip and non-specific discussion of an event that might make this a BLP1E-FAIL, if it were actually sourced out. Which it isn't. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have achieved long lasting notability. --Pink Bull 21:17, 24 May 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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thaha Madayi

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

Unreferenced BLP, unable to find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to satisfy WP:V or WP:N. Was previously PRODed for this reason but since a previous proposed deletion was contested it has to come here. Hut 8.5 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find a reliable source. Information is availabe on some unreliable sites but nothing to suggest the subject is notable in the wikipedia sense. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 19:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the lack of sources, the article's content does not indicate how the subject meets WP:GNG and more content seems difficult to find through Google. Blue Rasberry (talk) 07:34, 21 May 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) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Gjyla

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

Contested PROD. Concern was appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in europe. His only international club appearances are in qualifying, meaning that they are insufficient to grant notability under WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't appeared in a fully-pro league or competition, so fails WP:FOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and as best I can tell there is no evidence of him meeting GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:45, 24 May 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) 00:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dowd

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

Non-notable photographer, no sources which aren't or cannot be linked back to PR campaigns or press releases. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third party references, very minor awards delete as per nom.Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been on FOX 13 which used my Expertise in a matter, I find it insulting that you say the awards a minimal (unless it was against 3 people the odds are fair that its a minimal award) I challenged thousands in ArtFest 97 plus I don't know any award that is a GIVEN, you have to work for it and be the best and I was and you're telling me it was lame (HOW INSULTING), Are you in FL, do you know how big these events are? I won 1st place. My work allowed me to be chosen to photograph our 44th President during his stop in Tampa. I am showing in a international event in San Deigo, I have meetings with Galleries in St. Augustine next week to show my work. I see people in here that have less than I do, and are not flagged. Are you NOTABLE enough? Who defines notable. My idea of notable, and your idea of notable is obviously quite different. My work was written about in the laker, they are NOT online, there for I had to make a .pdf of it. I have a few articles in the works on other magazines which have not been released yet. I have had gallery afiliations, sorry its not the Louvre or anything. Notariety doesn't mean you show at the top places, its who knows your work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.96.179 (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your Svend Bayer article. He is less known than I am, but that's OK? I would suggest him for deletion as he is far less notable than I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.96.179 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability. You are welcome to list the article Svend Bayer for deletion if you think the article meets the criteria for deletion. Kind regardsTeapotgeorge^Talk 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy and guidelines define notability and Wikipedia-notability is indeed very different than dictionary-definition notability. For a better explanation please see my new user essay here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as explained above. -- Hoary (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in reliable third party sources, therefore notability not established. (Mr. Dowd, this is not in any way a reflection of you personally or of the quality of your work. It's just about meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines.) --Dawn Bard (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted, apparently twice: by Mike Rosoft on 17 May ‎(No claim of notability (WP:CSD#A7) - company; promotional) and by Jimfbleak on 18 May ‎(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ShadowTrack). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ShadowTrack

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

Non-notable product; no reliable sources apparent on quick Google and Google News searches. TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No claim of notability, promotional - delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 18 May 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) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships in Pirates of the Caribbean

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

This article shows no notability. While Pirates of the Caribbean may be notable, I see no evidence that any of it's ships carry any of this notability. While we are generally less harsh on lists, there are certain standards that everything must pass. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arrghh! Walk the plank. Random bits of in-universe trivia. Black Pearl and Flying Dutchman have their own articles, with apparently inadequate citations for notability. Maybe we should make them dance the hempen jig as well. Ma^t_chups 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Walk the plank per Matchups, but disagree alot on the idea of deleting Black Pearl and Flying Dutchman both have strong potential in being treated from a real world perspective and being well done, Sadads (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean and Salt - While they might have little chance of being notable, I think deleting might be harsh. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because it is trivial, non-encyclopedic and it is not related to human knowledge. With no references, the content fails verifiability, so the article is original research, and, with no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject, there is no presumption that it meets the general notability guideline per the criteria of notability for stand-alone list. The list is an unnecessary content fork composed of a plot-only description of a fictional work, material appropriate for a fansite, not Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appropriate for a fansite, but not for Wikipedia. Consists of WP:PRIMARY sources which are not acceptable in and of themselves to prove an article's notability under the WP:GNG. I could continue, but it's all basically been said. This article does not and cannot provide information that wouldn't be better stored in the Pirates of the Caribbean article itself. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 16:15, 21 May 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. Article is on the Main Page. See WP:SK#5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Something that starts with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are making... is really out of bounds. Story will probably be notable after the fact. Trovatore (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reason for AfD is insufficient. --That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Certainly a poor rationale for deletion. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply in this situation. The reference section alone displays the immense coverage this topic has received. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it reads like it's been written by Gerry Adams. Delete on non-POV grounds.--Wessexboy (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Not only is this an historic event, but it is more than adequately covered by reliable sources. Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per above but the section on the "Appeal to release Dublin–Monaghan bombing files" is disgraceful POV and should be removed, it has nothing to do with the Queen. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's possible I pulled the trigger on this one a little too fast. But can something at least be done about the blatantly journalistic tone? It could be as simple as changing the queen and the prince are making a visit and such and such is planned to the visit began on such and such a date and such and such was planned. Something that will still be true in a week, even without further editing.

Bottom line: Encyclopedias are not written in the present continuous tense. --Trovatore (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India. State visits are routine. There's little to say of the event other than "she went there ad people are talking about it", and it is apparently already becoming a coatrack for general Brit-Ireland relation criticisms, i.e. the above-mentioned bombing files section. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 17 May 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) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Harry Reid

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

This is essentially a WP:POVFORK involving a living person. Our WP:BLP policy expressly puts restrictions Criticism sections and discourages giving them "disproportionate space" this article does just that and violates the spirit of BLP. Material criticizing Harry Reid positions need to be included in Political positions of Harry Reid not WP:COATRACKed into an article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Harry Reid already has a lengthy criticism section, there's no need to duplicate the same material in a standalone article. 28bytes (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much valid info here to simply delete. As mentioned in the previous AfD, the article conforms with WP:SS: "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place." According to this tool, the character count of Harry_Reid#Criticism is 4,020, while the character count for Criticisms of Harry Reid is 15,355—more than three times as large. (In fact, the entire Harry Reid article has only 11,992 characters.) If a merge is desired with Political positions of Harry Reid, then a merge request should instead be initiated. —Eustress ^talk 19:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Criticisms of Harry Reid is larger than Harry Reid, doesn't that suggest an WP:UNDUE WEIGHT problem? 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A "Criticism of..." article should never exist in this encyclopedia. They just become dumb laundry lists of attacks from political detractors. Any notable criticisms appear to already exist in both the main Reid article and the "political positions" article; a redirect or merge is unnecessary. Tarc (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently one-sided and so contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:POVFORK usually entails disagreement over content. I don't see objections to specific content at the article, nor at Harry Reid. I might remind everyone "do not refer to forks as 'POV' except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Reid is certainly controversial enough for an article such as this, and there is too much sourced material to just delete it all. However, I would make a few changes... I suggest that the article be renamed and content added to balance the article. Remember: "It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance." Lionel (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a huge supporter of the WP:SPINOUT method of article development, but I have long considered these "Criticisms of <foo>" articles are the wrong way to go about it. Frequently they suffer from undue weight. On topics where there really are a lot of reliable sources saying things on both sides of the argument (like polarizing politicians), it's still a balance problem. Praise of Harry Reid? That wouldn't make it a week before being deleted as a hagiographical POV fork. And, thus, so should this, as its opposite. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. The article runs afoul of WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK, & WP:UNDUEWEIGHT.--JayJasper (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP recommends against criticism sections in articles and a complete article that is apparently even bigger that his life story is completely undue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 22 May 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) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Vladimir Putin

AfDs for this article:

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

This is essentially a WP:POVFORK involving a living person. Our WP:BLP policy expressly puts restrictions Criticism sections and discourages giving them "disproportionate space" this article does just that and violates the spirit of BLP. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is indeed a POV fork and probably a violation of BLP policy. Unfortunately, the articles relating to Putin and his policies as president are in a pretty bad state. Description, praise and criticism should all be together in the same article (or articles), and care must be taken not to give undue weight to any of these. Sometime in the future, I will do substantial work on related articles (perhaps creating Policies of Vladimir Putin or something.) In any case, "criticism" should not, and will not, have a separate article, because that gives it disproportionate space. Nanobear (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Regardless of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that is going to come up, this article is a gross violation of both WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. It is absolutely correct that some of this material should exist, but where? In the main articles for a start, where much of this information is already present. Not in articles such as this, which are magnets for the loon WP:FRINGE type views that often create a situation which is breaching WP:BLP. Take for example, Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin#Allegations_of_political_assassinations_and_muzzling_of_reporters, which is presented in such a way to try and prove the guilt of Putin of muzzling reporters, and then ordering assassinations on those who won't be muzzled. Well what would one expect when the article is essentially from the POV of the Berezovsky crowd? All criticism belongs in relevant articles, not in coatrack articles such as this. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently one-sided and so contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't matter what the article says, it only matters who votes in the AfD. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it is possible (although not easy) to write a neutral and encyclopedic article under this title, at present this is nothing but a cherry-picked collection of factoids many of which are already covered in the main article anyway. It's also interesting to note that many of other similar articles mentioned in the first nom are now redirects, or have been deleted, or are going through an AfD right now. Let's do the right thing and put this "article" out of its misery. Don't worry, Putin will still remain the monster he is :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2011; 13:17 (UTC)
Delete not a fan of Putin. But fair criticism should be presented in context with other facts. Creating a page completely devoted to criticism is WP:UNDUE weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. There should be a guideline that provides limits or even exclusions on "criticism of..." articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. The article runs afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:POVFORK, WP:BLP, & WP:UNDUE.--JayJasper (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is impossible to interpret this AfD nomination as anything but a cynical attempt to censor criticism of Vladimir Putin. Deterence ^Talk 03:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL ok I nominated "Criticism of" article for Noam Chomsky, Tony Blair and Harry Reid. If you can find an Agenda other than WP:BLP in that I would like to hear it? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the nom and BLP recommends against it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 22 May 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) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Tony Blair

AfDs for this article:

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

This is essentially a WP:POVFORK involving a living person. Our WP:BLP policy expressly puts restrictions on Criticism sections and discourages giving them "disproportionate space" this article does just that and violates the spirit of BLP. Criticisms involving policies need to be put in the appropriate articles on the policies themselves not in WP:COATRACK article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, on reflection, I agree with every word of that. This is an article entirely devoted to criticism of a living person. Delete.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, the content of this article would be acceptable if it was merged and included within Tony Blair for a more accurate context? Deterence ^Talk 03:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not automatically, no. You'd need a consensus at Talk:Tony Blair that its inclusion was balanced and proportionate before adding material from this article to that one. I remain of the opinion that this material should be deleted from the mainspace on closure of this AfD, but if Deterence wishes to seek consensus to merge it to Tony Blair then it should be incubated or userfied, so as to make this possible. Deterence, if you do merge anything from this article after it's been deleted from the mainspace, you should maintain attribution by including a list of the original authors in an edit summary or on the target article's talk page.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the rhetorical nature of my question was fairly obvious. Regardless, as the Tony Blair article has a section on Titles and Honours, there should be no issue with balancing such praise with some notable critical commentary, per WP:NPOV. Otherwise, the Tony Blair article begins to resemble a shrine, which is not what the cautionary principles of WP:BLP intend. Deterence ^Talk 11:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inherently one-sided and so contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin (3rd nomination). Tijfo098 (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NPOV. I think there is a consensus around this area, that "criticism of..." articles are almost always magnets for blind POV, and naturally create a hostile and unduly negative perspective on a topic. If enough of these articles are deleted, it would be worth adding this to a guideline if not a policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a fan of Mr Blair, but this article is WP:UNDUE and a WP:NPOV violation. Nanobear (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, & WP:POVFORK.--JayJasper (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I am not a huge fan of "criticism of..." articles, I am even less fond of the censorship of any criticism of political figures. The article is well written, very well referenced and is clearly notable. Indeed, this is precisely the sort of critical information that someone researching Tony Blair would be interested in. WP:BLP does not require us to sanitise all biographical articles to the point where living persons are portrayed as Saints. Deterence ^Talk 03:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anything that is not already duplicated in his BLP should be discussed for possible integration in related sections of his biography. Specific criticism sections are to be avoided and criticism articles are even more in violation of that BLP statement. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 22 May 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 Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portia Rosenberg

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

fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. gnews count is small and merely confirms she illustrated one book. [2]. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. The book is highly notable, and her contribution to it could be expanded at that article (currently a mere mention). --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 8 May 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, 9 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Melanie. Who knows, maybe a properly-written article might be justifiable, but if the creator can only be bothered to write one line, why research? Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 20 May 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) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Wedgwood

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

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. The book he wrote appears to have only a single citation according to Google Scholar: [3]. The other claims to notability in the article are based on being the descendent of notable subjects, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Other uncited facts in the article appear to be normal for a businessperson and not particularly notable as I can find no significant mention of them in secondary reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely concerned that User:ConcernedVancouverite is conducting a childish campaign of intimidation against me. What have I don? I've only written genuine articles about genuinely notable people. He knows nothing about this subject; yet he wades making a mess of things, of that I am not surprised. User:ConcernedVancouverite should be banned for vandalism and being disruptive. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. References? He's in Debrett's People of Today. Perhaps you should get yourself down to a library. Notability? He's in Debrett's People of Today. Flying Fische (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will ignore your personal attacks as you are clearly just very passionate about the topic, but I do encourage you to re-read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. In terms of the content of your statement, I made a good faith effort to find reliable sources (as Debrett's People of Today is sourced from the individual subject and as such is not truly a reliable secondary source for information about the subject as is evidenced from the Kallakis case [4] who still appears at [5]). But if a person is truly notable they would appear in more than just a self-provided who's who style guide. As such, as I mentioned, if you would be kind enough to provide some reliable sources to establish notability I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Until that point, I will leave it, so that either you or others will do proper sourcing on the article (or barring that delete the article). Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why you're going off topic on this. It is you that are constantly attacking me. The fact that Debrett's may have made one error of judgement regarding content doesn't suggest that it is incompetent to make such judgements generally. Flying Fische (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not the social register of the British hereditary ruling class. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now Anthony Wedgwood Benn? He's notable... Carrite (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I attempted to add content and source the article, there simply wasn't much to be found. I did a cleanup, restructure, and added a couple of refs.[6] One ref is the obituary of his father, which only establishes ancestry, while the other ref confirms his role as trustee of the National Churches Trust. In my opinion, the subject clearly does not meet topical notability criteria for authors. While wholly considering the inclusion in Debrett's, this does not equate to significance. Notability has additionally not been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse 08:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, as far as I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, well I think so anyway. Look, I know you say that notability "is not inherited" - that's why there aren't any articles on his siblings. But claiming that notability is never inherited is an extreme form of liberal idealism. He is the heir presumptive to the Wedgwood Barony, as the 4th Baron only legitimate offspring is a daughter, The Hon. Sandra Wedgwood (it is possible that the 4th Baron could have additional issue, but given his age it seems unlikely). And so he is mentioned and linked in those articles. Being ten years older than the 4th Baron, it is possible that he may predecease the 4th Baron and not inherit the Barony, but in that case it will go to the next in line (which would be his son, if he has any, which I'm not sure he does). Anyway, the family is not so much aristocratic as upper middle class, an industrial base rather than a landed base. Just his direct line ancestors are father, grandfather, great grand-father, great-great-grandfather, great-great-great-grandfather, another great-great-great-grandfather, great-great-great-great grandfather, great-great-great-great-great grandfather, and even great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather. Start to add in uncles and cousins, and it's quite clear that being a member of the family is notable. The Financial Services Act 1986 is a major piece of Thatcherite legislation from Mrs Thatcher's government that led to the Yuppie culture of the 1980s. A contemporary Guide to it is a historical document worthy of note. The National Churches Trust is the only national, independent, non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting and supporting church buildings of historic, architectural and community value across the UK, and is clearly an important charity. Finally, the crucial thing is Debrett's, who are not a bunch of hacks - they're doing this professionally, and are not kidding you when they say he is notable. Accumulatively these things add up to demonstrate clear notability. Flying Fische (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. The arguments made by the sole defender, above, are absurd, and betray a personal agenda of some kind. Qworty (talk) 23:59, 19 May 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. withdrawn (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Galsworthy

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

Appears to fail WP:DIPLOMAT. All I can find in terms of google hits and google books are mentions where he is listed on lists of diplomats such as: [7] and lists of CMG such as: [8]. There may be reliable sources to establish notability at the level suggested for WP:DIPLOMAT, but I am unable to find them. If those sources are turned up by someone, then I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. But if they are not, it has been marked for 3 months as not citing any references, and it is likely time to be deleted without the successful discovery of such sources to document notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep'. I am extremely concerned that User:ConcernedVancouverite is conducting a childish campaign of intimidation against me. What have I don? I've only written genuine articles about genuinely notable people. He knows nothing about this subject; yet he wades making a mess of things, of that I am not surprised. User:ConcernedVancouverite should be banned for vandalism and being disruptive. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. References? Try using your brain and looking at Who's Who. Notability? Knighthood indicates notability. Flying Fische (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will ignore your personal attacks as you are clearly just very passionate about the topic, but I do encourage you to re-read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. In terms of the content of your statement, almost all British diplomats are automatically assigned Knighthood, so in this case it does not appear to confer notability considering the guidance for all diplomats worldwide as stated here WP:DIPLOMAT. I made a good faith effort to find reliable sources (as Who's Who is not a particularly wonderful source to establish notability, as it has a bias to include all Baronetage, regardless of how minor their achievements, and misses many more notable folks). As such, as I mentioned if you would be kind enough to provide some reliable sources to establish notability at the WP:DIPLOMAT level I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Until that point, I will leave it, so that either you or others will do proper sourcing on the article (or barring that delete the article). Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have "personally attacked" nobody, indeed I and my perfectly good contributions are constantly under attack and intimidation for no apparent reason from people like you. Now FYI, Who's Who is a perfectly good source to indicate both notability and provide references. I'm sorry if you don't agree with it because it's deemed "socially conservative" (tbh WP:NOTINHERITED seems to be a product of this liberal idealism as well). It is a vast resource of information on the British establishment that contains such useful information. Yes, it misses some people outside of the establishment, but that's OK because Wikipedia is supposed to be politically neutral so already has articles on all premiership footballers and others who have achieved in other ways. The fact is that Wikipedia is not paper, so the inclusion of those in Who's Who and Debrett's, perfectly cited, is not going to adversely impact any other parts of the encyclopedia. If anything, Wikipedia needs more articles on the establishment, not less. It is quite clear that the editors of those publications consider them to be notable; remember they do this professionally and ultimately for commercial purposes. It is not in their interest to include biographies of people who aren't notable. If they were making money they would revise their editorial practices. Obituary writers for the major broadsheets, are also going to include such people, even if they don't mean such arbitrary standards as "WP:DIPLOMAT" actually appears to fall short. Again, we need more of this not less; now in an ideal world and encycleopedia would be written "top down" - the most important people first, followed by those slightly less important, and so on until the borderline cases are reached. Editors are probably further down that triangle with sportsmen, singers than with diplomats. So diplomats are more notable than many of the others included here otherwise without question. Flying Fische (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. An ambassador, high commissioner, colonial governor and knight. Ridiculous nomination. Incidentally, the nominator's statement that "almost all British diplomats are automatically assigned Knighthood" is utter rubbish. Only senior ambassadors are usually knighted towards the end of long and distinguished careers. In any case, we as a rule keep articles on anyone who has been knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ambassadors still require satisfaction of WP:DIPLOMAT, which there have been no reliable sources provided to support. I have searched and have not turned them up. If he is notable, then please do provide the citations. Regarding knighting, you may want to make some edits to KCMG then which currently states, "People are appointed to the Order rather than awarded it. British Ambassadors to foreign nations are regularly appointed as KCMGs or CMGs." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the part "...or CMGs". A CMG is not a knighthood; a KCMG is. Mid-ranking ambassadors are often appointed CMG, but to be appointed KCMG one has to be pretty senior. Somebody who is notable enough to have been knighted is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. Even most people appointed CMG would be considered notable. Note this from higher up the notability guideline you have just quoted: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." A knighthood most definitely counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor". The general notability guideline is thus satisfied. In addition, notability guidelines are not proscriptive, as you appear to think they are: "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Just because someone does not meet a narrow set of criteria (very narrow in the case of WP:DIPLOMAT) does not disqualify them from being the subject of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somebody who has received a knighthood is notable as having received a significant award or honour. I agree too with the notion that Wikipedia is not just to record popular personalities or contemporary politicians. I understand why WP:DIPLOMAT might have been written in the terms it was because there is a need to avoid notability by inheritance from particualr events. But senior government officials and so forth get little attention and often make a greater contribution to the public than politicians, and the fact that they are little known actually makes their entry in Wikipedia more valuable. --AJHingston (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO, WP:DIPLOMAT. Gbooks search suggests a role in handling of affairs during the 1967 riots in Hong Kong (see, e.g., [9]). There is also a full obituary in the Times when he died, which is available to anybody with Lexis or some similar database. Ray^Talk 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - Thank you to RayAYang for providing a citation to establish notability. Since that has been located, I can now withdraw the nomination as promised in the original nomination.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:58, 20 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Marvel Comics characters

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

The Marvel Comics characters in this list are explicitly non-notable; both the title and the lede declaire that the characters are minor. There is ample precedent for deleting lists of minor or secondary fictional characters. Examples include the AfDs for Avatar: The Last Airbender, The Venture Bros., and Hannibal. There are plenty of lists of Marvel Comics characters on Wikipedia; there is no need to recapitulate all the minor characters onto yet another list. Neelix (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definition of minor seems tenuous here, and the list is pretty open-ended due to the scope of Marvel Comics. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that "minor seems tenuous" is close to the mark but "List of Marvel Characters that need explanation because they are referenced in other articles where such explanation is untenable but cannot support their own articles" is a bit long. And the "easy" alternative to this type of list - linking to a wiki in the body of articles - isn't looked on kindly.
Yes, there are a number of list of Marvel characters, though it is unclear which one(s) the nom would suggest shipping the contents of this list to long with re-pointing the redirects. And those list do run the gamut from some information to bare bullet lists of names, the latter of which really aren't that helpful in help a reader understand anything. And looking at the previous AfDs, consolidation or redirection has been result - intended or - of the AfDs. That is something that works well with a relatively closed item like a TV show or film series. It doesn't work that well with the material related to Marvel.
- J Greb (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is based on a mistake. While the characters on the list are non-notable as the nomination says, that's not actually a problem:- individual items on a list don't have to be notable. The test of notability that properly applies to this list is whether "Marvel Comics characters" are notable. (See WP:LISTN.)—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unusual idea for an article. But "minor" does not mean "not notable" or "not significant". A minor character can influence a story in a major way. Similarly, although notability is not inherited, the effect of a minor character in a story is. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 11:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This list seems to be made of characters that are unable to be put onto the other lists because they don't fit any of those categories. I would suggest that adding content further explaining why these minor characters are important in their appearances, thus helping to establish notability that is easier to recognize for editors that don't realize "minor" does not mean "not notable" or "not significant". Kurt Parker (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above comments, although a rename might not be a bad idea to avoid the implication that the characters in the list are inherently not notable. There are a plethora of character articles that people have created over the years (guilty as charged, I'll admit) that probably don't warrant having their own articles, but instead should be merged somewhere, and this is the best place for them. Rather than delete, I think this list will be expanded over time, and will ultimately take up several pages. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - I agree that articles about non-notable characters can be merged into lists, but List of Marvel Universe characters and its subpages are the appropriate targets for those mergers. The lists of Marvel Universe characters do not exclude minor characters, therefore List of minor Marvel Comics characters is simply redundant. Neelix (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How are you on nutshell character descriptions, publication notes and and external link column migrating to the 27 page list? - J Greb (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My track record should demonstrate that I'm willing to put the time in. Neelix (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if you'd be willing to help perform such a merge, then it makes no sense to request deletion over a merge, because you seem to be arguing for a merge as it is. The text in the current list has been modified from the previously articles, so we would not be merging from the articles themselves, but from the list into another list. BOZ (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm willing to put the time into merging articles about characters that are referenced in reliable secondary sources; the characters on this list do not pass that criterion. Characters that are referenced only once in reliable secondary sources are not sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, but they are appropriate to include on a list of characters. Contrariwise, characters that are not referenced in reliable secondary sources at all do not justify inclusion on Wikipedia at all. A list entirely made up of such characters is against several of Wikipedia's guidelines, as Jfgslo points out below. Neelix (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Then there are some issues about the ability of Wikipedia to clearly and sufficiently cover works of serial fiction. Mainly where characters get mentioned in articles and do not get or cannot be clearly explained within the scope of that article. Pointing to a list without descriptions (the 27 pager) dose not serve any good purpose. Right now we have multiple articles being added and maintained that only fill that need. This is a step towards fixing that without expunging the information. postdlf makes a fair observation - this or something similar should have the "major" characters, the ones supporting their own articles or meeting the "at least mentioned once in a reliable secondary source", should be included and wind up replacing the current 27pg bullet point list. Unfortunately I don't see that as a "quick" event or one that would happily work as "upgrade the list entries as you go" process. - J Greb (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia explicitly does not include plot-only descriptions of fictional works; that is the inherent nature of lists of fictional characters that do not have any reliable secondary sources. If you are interested in working on such lists, it would be better to do so on the Marvel Comics Database, not on Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we're running in circles. And it's increasingly feeling like the upshot is to not provide information to help understand elements in works of fiction in any way shape or form. It seems that it is fine that characters may be mentioned in other articles but it is not within Wikipedia's remit to provide a contextual nutshell for the person reading those articles or a direct link to where that information can be found. That comes off as a disservice to a person using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and not a little elitist.
        The initial intent of this list was to help in housing that nutshell information that isn't proper to pepper other articles with. In that regard, 24 of the 28 articles that have been merged in have been done so boldly. Of the remaining four one was the response to a PROD, one handling a PROD that was deleted, one a change in an AfD merge, and one directly from an AfD merge. Of the 24 bold merges, all were plot dumps of varying lengths, most were linked to other articles, and a number had longstanding plot/source maintenance tags that no one was dealing with. And only one of those merges was Talk:Protégé (comics) contested]] in any way. While I understand WP:PLOT and am not a huge fan of articles that disproportionally use plot synopsis, I also understand the need to have at least some information present on plot elements mentioned in other articles and that large sections/groupings of articles can only be pushed so far in one go. An ideal end result would have had the plot section knocked down to somewhere between one and four sentences and the external link(s).
        Now, due in part to this discussion and specifically postdlf's points, it's clear that the intent should include the articles on characters that aren't solely plot. I'd still like to see the "description" of the characters held to a max of three or four lines, but it provides a more functional and encyclopedic handling of the material. And including the links - to Wikipedia articles where the justifiably exist or to either Marvel Database or Marvel Universe Wiki - serves the encyclopedic purpose of pointing a reader to where further information can be found.
        And one last point regarding those 24 bold merges... If this articles is removed, I don't think it is possible to apply that as an AfD of those articles. That is, they get restored as they were.
        - J Greb (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The characters within the list are not notable per the general notability guideline. The article is referenced exclusively with primary sources which do not show notability for the individual characters in the list or for a list of minor characters in any way. Per the criteria of notability for stand-alone list, a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and the sources within the article show that this is not the case. A quick search engine test shows unreliable sources and plot descriptions with no critical commentary or real-world context. Also, the article should be deleted since it is an unnecessary content fork of several other character list of the Marvel Universe and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context, which makes it non-encyclopedic. It is also against the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because it is trivial and non-encyclopedic and it is not related to human knowledge. Jfgslo (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of minor DC Comics characters should be included in this deletion.130.120.37.11 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of Keep. A discussion was made in the Comics WikiProject that we should have a place to put all these not-notable or stub articles of the characters. And a list article was always a better place for them. Furthermore I would go far enough to say that this is more useful than the List of Marvel Comics characters for it was always mainly a list that doesn't do information on the character that instead linked the characters whether they had an article or not. It's like a category but instead it will also show characters that don't have articles by redlinking them. Even then when we AFD'd something like the minor Avatar characters it mainly didn't deserve stand-alone but the result was always to merge it to another article. That's not the case for this one for there is nowhere for this to be merged. And deletion might make it complicated for the articles turned redirections if this gets deleted. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per S Marshall and Jhenderson777. This list is in furtherance of coverage of Marvel Comics characters, a media franchise lasting five decades (seven if you count predecessor companies such as Timely and Atlas). There is no requirement that the items on a list merit individual articles, and there is no possible merge target. I personally don't like the division between minor and major; these lists should also index characters that have articles, by giving a brief summary in the list and linking to those articles, but that's an editing decision. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It should be pointed out that all of the guidelines that have been quoted in this AfD have supported deletion; no guidelines have been quoted that support keeping the article. WP:LISTN, WP:PRIMARY, WP:CFORK, WP:PLOT, and WP:SALAT all call for this article to be deleted. Neelix (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It should also be pointed out that guidelines, unlike policies that should be held as close to as possible, are supposed to be flexible and based on the assumption that exceptions will exist that stretch, buck, or break their strictures. Notability (LISTN), Content forking, and Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) (SALAT), are guidelines and should be treated as such. And that while No original research (PRIMARY) and What Wikipedia is not (PLOT) are policies, the sections pointed to do allow for limited use of both in material dealing with work or elements of fiction. - J Greb (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: limited use, not entire articles. Neelix (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the appropriate way of dealing with this minor material. The correct interpretation of NOT PLOT is completely disputed, and the only reason it hasn't been replaced is the total disagreement on what should replace it. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete S.Marshall is close, but not quite right. The test is not whether "Marvel Comics characters" together are notable but whether minor Marvel Comics characters are notable (that is, covered together as such). Neelix gets it right, this should be included in List of Marvel Universe characters if it can be sourced. Per WP:LISTN, which S.Marshall uses as the basis of the argument, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". A conglomeration of non-notable things does not together achieve N unless covered together as a concept/set/group. On the other hand, adding discussion of non-independently notable aspects of a notable topic can be fine. DGG's reference to NOTPLOT missing the mark, too, I think, because the same rationale applies whether this is about fictional characters or any other non-notable subgroup of a notable group. And I agree wtih postdlf concern about the minor/major distinction (it strikes me as nearly always OR), but a delete or merge to a broader topic fixes this issue, while a keep does not.Novaseminary (talk) 04:58, 24 May 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. "Has received a well-known and significant award or honor." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Galsworthy (diplomat)

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

Appears to fail WP:DIPLOMAT. All I can find in terms of google hits and google books are mentions where he is listed on lists of diplomats. There are literally hundreds of references to John Galsworthy, the noble prize winner, who is a different person. Those references make it difficult to find information specifically about John Edgar Galsworthy (the subject of this article), so there may be reliable sources to document notability at the level suggested for WP:DIPLOMAT, but I am unable to find them. If those sources are turned up by someone, then I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. But if they are not, it has been marked for 3 months as not citing any references, and it is likely time to be deleted without the successful discovery of such sources to document notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep'. I am extremely concerned that User:ConcernedVancouverite is conducting a childish campaign of intimidation against me. What have I don? I've only written genuine articles about genuinely notable people. He knows nothing about this subject; yet he wades making a mess of things, of that I am not surprised. User:ConcernedVancouverite should be banned for vandalism and being disruptive. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. References? Try using your brain and looking at Who's Who. Notability? Knighthood indicates notability. Flying Fische (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will ignore your personal attacks as you are clearly just very passionate about the topic, but I do encourage you to re-read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. In terms of the content of your statement, almost all British diplomats are automatically assigned Knighthood, so in this case it does not appear to confer notability considering the guidance for all diplomats worldwide as stated here WP:DIPLOMAT. I made a good faith effort to find reliable sources (as Who's Who is not a particularly wonderful source to establish notability, as it has a bias to include all Baronetage, regardless of how minor their achievements, and misses many more notable folks). As such, as I mentioned if you would be kind enough to provide some reliable sources to establish notability at the WP:DIPLOMAT level I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. Until that point, I will leave it, so that either you or others will do proper sourcing on the article (or barring that delete the article). Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have "personally attacked" nobody (please don't lie and suggest that I have), indeed I and my perfectly good contributions are constantly under attack and intimidation for no apparent reason from people like you. Now FYI, Who's Who is a perfectly good source to indicate both notability and provide references. I'm sorry if you don't agree with it because it's deemed "socially conservative" (tbh WP:NOTINHERITED seems to be a product of this liberal idealism as well). It is a vast resource of information on the British establishment that contains such useful information. Yes, it misses some people outside of the establishment, but that's OK because Wikipedia is supposed to be politically neutral so already has articles on all premiership footballers and others who have achieved in other ways. The fact is that Wikipedia is not paper, so the inclusion of those in Who's Who and Debrett's, perfectly cited, is not going to adversely impact any other parts of the encyclopedia. If anything, Wikipedia needs more articles on the establishment, not less. It is quite clear that the editors of those publications consider them to be notable; remember they do this professionally and ultimately for commercial purposes. It is not in their interest to include biographies of people who aren't notable. If they were making money they would revise their editorial practices. Obituary writers for the major broadsheets, are also going to include such people, even if they don't mean such arbitrary standards as "WP:DIPLOMAT" actually appears to fall short. Again, we need more of this not less; now in an ideal world and encycleopedia would be written "top down" - the most important people first, followed by those slightly less important, and so on until the borderline cases are reached. Editors are probably further down that triangle with sportsmen, singers than with diplomats. So diplomats are more notable than many of the others included here otherwise without question. Flying Fische (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. An ambassador and knight. Ridiculous nomination. Incidentally, the nominator's statement that "almost all British diplomats are automatically assigned Knighthood" is utter rubbish. Only senior ambassadors are usually knighted towards the end of long and distinguished careers. In any case, we as a rule keep articles on anyone who has been knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ambassadors still require satisfaction of WP:DIPLOMAT, which there have been no reliable sources provided to support. I have searched and have not turned them up. If he is notable, then please do provide the citations. Regarding knighting, you may want to make some edits to KCMG then which currently states, "People are appointed to the Order rather than awarded it. British Ambassadors to foreign nations are regularly appointed as KCMGs or CMGs." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the part "...or CMGs". A CMG is not a knighthood; a KCMG is. Mid-ranking ambassadors are often appointed CMG, but to be appointed KCMG one has to be pretty senior. Somebody who is notable enough to have been knighted is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. Even most people appointed CMG would be considered notable. Note this from higher up the notability guideline you have just quoted: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." A knighthood most definitely counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor". The general notability guideline is thus satisfied. In addition, notability guidelines are not proscriptive, as you appear to think they are: "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Just because someone does not meet a narrow set of criteria (very narrow in the case of WP:DIPLOMAT) does not disqualify them from being the subject of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:DIPLOMAT. The notability standards of entities outside Wikipedia are wholly irrelevant. WP has its own standards of notability, and those are the only ones that matter here. Not every ambassador, diplomat, or knight is notable by WP standards. So the argument that Galsworthy should be kept merely because he was an ambassador, diplomat, and knight is completely false. Qworty (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, rubbish. If anyone has a distinguished enough career to be knighted then he definitely has a distinguished enough career for an article on Wikipedia. In any case, whether he fails WP:DIPLOMAT or not is irrelevant, since people who have been knighted clearly pass WP:ANYBIO. If you want more, as well as being ambassador to Mexico, a fairly important diplomatic post, Galsworthy was also one of the two British observers at the free elections in El Salvador in 1982 and co-authored the subsequent Government White Paper. No, maybe he wasn't a well-known figure, but he was a senior and successful diplomat, and we don't just cover people the general public are likely to have heard of. We provide information on significant figures whoever they may be. Government officials are often not well-known, but they are frequently significant. And a knighthood is generally a fairly good indicator that they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a knighthood isn't "a well-known and significant award or honor", per WP:ANYBIO criterion 1, then I don't know what is. Maybe it would have been better if the subject had received an AVN award instead, as they seem to be accepted as confirmation of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I tend to agree that he has received a significant award and is thus notable. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V because the article is still unsourced and nobody has bothered to reliably source it during the AfD. If sourced, keep per the apparently notable knighthoods. Sandstein 05:12, 25 May 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 Morphy number. Or to another page as determined by subsequent consensus. Sandstein 05:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shusaku number

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

Prodded and deleted article was brought back. Topic is completely nonnotable, with no reliable source. Only mention of a source at all in article is to a page that fails WP:RS quite dramatically. This doesn't even meet our inclusion guidelines for being mentioned in *any* article, let alone demonstrating notability enough to have its own article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this is unlikely to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. It's difficult to find reliable English language sources for go related content; there's a lot of "folklore" that may well be documented in an Asian language, but most English-speaking Wikipedia editors don't have easy access to this literature. Therefore a little patience is called for. I thought it was worth bringing this article back for a second look, but I won't be at all surprised if it gets deleted in the near future. However, I hope it can be done in a civil manner; adjectives such as "completely", "dramatically" and "spectacularly" (from the original prod) are not constructive. Jowa fan (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I previously mentioned elsewhere, I don't think the article should be deleted, but I don't have the time and motivation to go through the legalistic rules to understand why it deserves to be deleted or to find reasons that it shouldn't. I am not an experienced editor, but if somebody can suggest specific ways to improve the article, then I can try to improve it. I also strongly dislike the manner and tone used in the deletion proposal. [Added note] I am the article's creator. aditsu (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 13:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've edited the article to show its wider context. The Shusaku system is one of a few such numbers, & the others are all on WP it seems. I wouldn't support this article's deletion because it's less mainstream (in the West at least). If you compare it with the others on WP, you see that it relates to a man who died in 1829, making it the oldest-based system. I don't think there's any doubt that within Go circles, the Shusaku mumber exists and has some meaning. That's not to say that the article couldn't be improved & more/better references found. I'd also echo the sentiment about vocabulary. Trafford09 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak delete~~ I'm not finding a single reliable source for this term. That said, I'd guess those terms might be found in Japanese and so my search might not prove much. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC) ---merge to Morphy number. One good source and a reasonable merge target makes merging a good solution. I'd say nothing more than a couple of sentences though. Hobit (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hobit: I concede that RSs in English are hard to find. But I don't know if you had checked out the Reference I added to the article? It's a link to a Christmas Quiz that EuroGoTV ran. EuroGoTV is an established concern. It is endorsed at the highest level (an icon link from their home page) by the European Go Federation (EGF). The latter is the recognised Go umbrella association for Europe, 54 years old. The EGF has 35 member countries' associations affiliated to it. Would you not deem EuroGoTV a proper source? Trafford09 (talk) 10:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a solid source from what I can tell. Do you know of any other reliable sources, in English or otherwise? Hobit (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found any other good ones in English. I notice though that the article already had inter-wiki links to our sister-Wikipedias' equivalent articles in Japanese and Chinese. I don't speak those languages sufficiently to suggest how good those links are. Having said that, I suppose the fact that the article exists in Japanese WP (& Chinese for over 2 years) is a good sign of authenticity in Shusaku's own country of birth. Trafford09 (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly merge. Even within the relevent field (the Go community) this concept is just not independently notable (if you ever hear it mentioned it will always be followed by an explanation of this obscure concept regarding some mathematician..). Aditsu, no matter how much you edit the article, you can never fix a lack of notability. Trafford09, even in other languages it is still not really notable (e.g., ja.wikipedia - Shusaku's language - does have a stub but only cites the English Go community's wiki), and such a minor reference by EuroGo (where the tone introduces it as esoteric trivia unfamiliar to most of the relevent field) notwithstanding either. The only possible significance of the topic is in relation to the concept on which it (like several other proposed minor variations) is based, so here is a solution that avoids disenfranchising anyone for now: redirect to Erdős_number#Shusaka_number (and develop a section there for all the similar minor variations). In particular, note that part of the existing Shusaku number content (the table of similar variations) is obviously much more appropriate on that main Erdos number article rather than one offshoot article. Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge, Morphy number is a better target. 76.244.155.165 (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Notability is about whether reliable sources can be found, not whether the topic feels important to people. Whether it's "esoteric trivia" is irrelevant: there's plenty of precedent for (well-documented) trivia on Wikipedia. The statement "this concept is just not independently notable" is unprovable: it's possible that the necessary sources do exist but just haven't been found yet. However, given the current paucity of sources, it seems to me that merging is the best practical solution for the time being. Jowa fan (talk) 00:38, 23 May 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) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maeve Gilmore

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

Two-sentence biography of non-notable person. Nothing in article supports claim of notability. Dave
Please help!
17:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

She is clearly notable, google search establishes that. This shouldn't go through this process disgracefully like her granddaughter Florence Peake. Flying Fische (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Flying Fische (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yes, that is true, thanks for pointing it out! I am allowed an opinion too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Fische (talk • contribs) 17 May 2011
I'm inclined to Keep here or at least Merge to Mervyn Peake. Her novel generated coverage such as these from The Telegraph and The Guardian and there are other sources around that can add to the article.--Michig (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that someone has now nominated this notable personfor @speedy deletion@? (and removed the AFD tag like you're not supposed to do?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Fische (talk • contribs) 17 May 2011

The speedy issue has been dealt with. This article definitely does not qualify for A3 as tagged, and I see no other speedy criterion that this article might fall under. I also see no evidence that an AfD tag was removed; it was simply moved down because the much bigger speedy tag was placed on top. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep if only because of the Titus Awakes angle. But it does need writing up. Fewer, better, articles, FF! Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are two reliable sources showing in the external links. This is a terrible stub and it needs much work, but even a cursory search of Google indicates that there is sufficient material out there in the long grass to do a proper job of it. Adding to this subject's cause is the fact that it's a biography of a person no longer living, which should be entitled to somewhat relaxed vigilance against hype, self-promotion, salesmanship, etc. Encyclopedia-worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Sources satisfy WP:GNG. Article needs improvement, not deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 18:29, 20 May 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 withdrawn, no other consensus to delete - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dods (Group) PLC

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

No claim to notability, v poorly referenced, initially speedied but declined. Fails WP:CORP. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the Huveaux PLC link and am in error therefore in nominating this article. Would someone please close this AfD? Thanks. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has received significant discussion in multiple independent WP:RS secondary sources. One simply has to expand search parameters past just the "Dods" name of the company, to its prior name, "Huveaux PLC". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is a listed company WP:LISTED and has received significant discussion in two other existing wikipedia articles relating to subsidiary companies, and four existing wikipedia articles relating to notable publications produced by the company WP:PRODUCT. --Whlb (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Businesses with dying and reviving gods on their directorates are probably notable. Might be mergeable to one of its definitely notable subsidiaries such as Parliamentary Monitoring Services, at least if there's little more to say about the umbrella business specifically other than this, but until then, keep. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:06, 18 May 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) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goshin Jujitsu

AfDs for this article:

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

A non notable martial art without source to support the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A fair number of ghits, but I found no independent sources to support notability. Astudent0 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It exists, but I found nothing to show it's notable. There are nothing but primary sources. For example, the main author seems to be a student and provides quotes from his instructor. I found no reliable references supporting notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 21 May 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) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugei Juhappan

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

A non notable martial art without source to support the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 13:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/Neutral I've heard of this and found mentions of it when I searched. The problem is that the article is unsourced and I couldn't find any reliable sources to support the statements in the article. Astudent0 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sufficient sourcing to verify statements or confirm notability. --DAJF (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I've seen the term, but I couldn't find any reliable sources to support notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:16, 21 May 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) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gendai jujutsu

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

A non notable martial art without source to support the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about "a martial art". Its topic is all jujutsu styles that can trace its roots back to the really old, Japanese ones. I am not sure how established the term "gendai jujutsu" is. I don't know if it should be kept or not, but the user creating the AfD has completely misunderstood the article topic (which in itself perhaps says the article is not very good). --83.185.73.135 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has only primary sources and remains unchanged despite having been tagged for lack of independent sources and original research for 3 years. Astudent0 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except for some message boards and dojo web pages (and wikipedia mirrors, of course), I don't find this term to be widely used. The fact that most of the article is quoting internet forums, leads me to believe this is not a wide-spread term. If this article is kept it needs to find some independent sources and get trimmed down. Papaursa (talk) 17:53, 21 May 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) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yawara Jutsu

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

A non notable martial art without source to support the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article and even the article claims the style is nearly extinct. Claims to be 900 years old, but I found no reliable support for that claim. Astudent0 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources and the opening section (at least) is lifted exactly from the organization's web page. I found no independent sources that show this is notable. Papaursa (talk) 17:44, 21 May 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. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Finlayson

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

Speedy declined. Article makes no assertion of notability. As a screening check, Google Scholar shows only a very few citations to the book that he wrote. Google Books shows the one book and no commentary on it, nor biography of the author. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The one book that is cited is a "standard work of reference on notable figures from British history", the Dictionary of National Biography. Finlayson also had a similar entry in the American Cyclopaedia. In truth, I'm not immediately seeing what it was that granted him that degree of attention, but it does seem to be evidence that he was considered notable in the 19th century. AllyD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - I should have said that he (Finlayson) only wrote one book, which has only a few citations showing on Scholar. I wasn't referring to the Dictionary of National Biography. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a few references and links to the article itself. In addtion, I note that his book was utilised by one Charles Darwin ("The Correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 2, 1837-1843" ISBN 9780521255882). I feel there is enough to merit the article. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't know how the nominator missed all the relevant info that a basic GoogleBooks search provides here. The Crawfurd mission was the first European mission to Siam and Finlayson's account of it received significant attention at the time it was published and thereafter. Here are a couple of examples of in-depth and detailed reviews of the book, also containing significant biographical coverage of Finlayson himself, from 1820s:[10], [11]. There are also quite a few examples of modern coverage, such as this one[12]. To quote from the last source:"Finlayson was one of the best naturalists of his day and his studies in southern Thailand and the Malay peninsula were pioneering". He did not make the Dictionary of the Natural Biography for nothing. Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of arguments above. Nominator is advised to carry out WP:Before more thoroughly before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment by nominator - none of this showed up when I looked at Google Books. It will be wonderful to have all these notable references added to the article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep - Even I wouldn't have nom'd this for CSD or AFD. Notable enough to have a bird named after him! - UtherSRG (talk) 02:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator could consider withdrawing the nomination to reduce the backlog by one. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment by nom - Is having a bird named after you enough to pass the WP:PROF test? I suppose that could be considered to pass the first criterion; he certainly doesn't pass 2 through 9. I looked at one of the book review references and the reviewer spends most of his time recounting how Finlayson doesn't like Orientals; I suppose race science is science, of a kind. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have a low tolerance for attempts to knock serious material out of the encyclopedia on sourcing grounds. If there is insufficient sourcing showing on an article about an early 19th Century Scottish naturalist, then tag it for more sources!!! Yet again and again we see people dragging serious work to the slaughterhouse because it doesn't measure to some guideline delivered from a burning bush to Moses 5000 years ago... Sheesh. Terrible nomination. He's listed in the OXFORD DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY. Maybe that's a clue? Here's an 1889 DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY. Shit, nominator, for the love of Sweet Baby Jesus: WP:BEFORE. I am out of here... Carrite (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator - you can get listed in some dictionary of biography for having had an ancestor that held the King's horses. Excuse me if I'm not exhaustively familiar with the notability of 19th century naturalists. Too bad all these vital facts weren't in the article last week. Once again AfD turns into an impromptu article improvement drive. Perhaps I did my Google Books and Google Scholar searches incorrectly, I don't recall seeing a lot of unique items show up. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I notice the flanking divines and sea captains don't have Wikipedia articles either, so showing up in a dictionary of national biography is not an infalliable passport to a Wikipedia article. Or are you going to swear at me about those, too? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's irrelevant. I would point out that the article, when nominated, explicitly noted that the material was from the Dictionary of National Biography, and even provided a link to the our wikipedia article which tells us that it "is a standard work of reference on notable figures from British history". That should be ample clue that this was a notable person, and tagging it for improvement would have been far more appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it's irrelevant; our criteria for articles about scientists and other academics are not the same as the criteria for being listed in a book of British biographies. Our criteria say something about "multiple, independant, significant" sources; after all, my name is in 300,000 books but that doesn't make me notable. And why doesn't the worthy cleric have an article here, if that's the relevant criterion? He gets about 5 times the space Finlayson got; I'm sure the bigraphical dictionary cited has hundreds of other entries on people who are too obscure for Wikipedia articles. Cutting and pasting a biography from some copyright-expired source is not a strong way to build this encyclopedia. Tgging for improvement is most often pointless since they seem to have no effect. It's not hard to find stale tags that have sat on articles for years. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact that nobody has expended the effort to create an article about a person does not mean that the person is not notable. The fact that there aren't enough editors to improve all the articles we have is no reason to delete them. If you feel that stale tags need to be dealt with, then I implore you to join one the many wikiprojects devoted to cleanup. -- Whpq (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've been doing stale tags all week. We've got 3+ million articles and we still don't have an article on everyone in the 19th century dictionary of biography (nor, for that matter, everyone in the 1948 Bakersfield California phone book). We've got several hundred thousand editors. If this elite group has chosen to focus more on Pokemons and grage bands than obscure entries from 19th century directories, then perhaps the 19th century directories aren't a good guide to notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who has an article in the DNB is most certainly notable. The notability thresholds for that work are far higher than for Wikipedia. It's the standard academic reference work on notable people in British history, for crying out loud. It is most certainly not "some copyright-expired source", but an ongoing project used and contributed to by scholars throughout the world. Yet another AfD nomination that seems to be based on the highly flawed premise that if a subject doesn't show up numerous times on the internet then it's not notable. How many times do we have to say that the internet is not the one and only criterion for inclusion before it sinks in? Time and time again we hear the cry "it's not on Google Books so it's not notable". Utter and absolute rubbish! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More from the poor devil who had the gall to nominate an article for deletion It's too bad all this notability wasn't apparent from the cut'n'paste form that the article had initially. Perhaps we shouldn't cut'n'paste from copyright-expired sources just to pad the article count but instead should actually explain the relevance of any given entry to *this* project. Finlayson's whole reputation rests on ONE (posthumously published) book? What sort of academic has only ONE publication? Ordinarily, that wouldn't get you into Wikipedia - but I guess things are different if you're listed in the British dictionary of biography. Forgive me for not being able to recognize sacred articles from the common run of filler. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that this man lived in the early 19th century, when books were much rarer, not in the 21st century, when everyone and his wife writes them. Reputations were frequently made with a single book in those days. He was also well-travelled in an age when travel in exotic parts frequently did make one notable. You cannot apply the same standards of notability to historic figures as you do to modern figures. Now everyone travels and writes books - then they didn't. Which is why he was included in the DNB - his modern equivalents almost certainly wouldn't be. No, the article shouldn't have been simply cut-and-pasted, which is never a good idea, but in all fairness you did nominate it for deletion only three days after it was created. Wait a little longer and maybe it would have been expanded. And as has already been pointed out, AfD is not a good forum for highlighting poorly-sourced or poorly-written articles. As long as the subject appears to have notability, these should be tagged for cleanup, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further comment from an emittered nominator Yes, this is why we have "articles" about teenage girls who died in a convent in the 12th century, who are considered "notable" because their aunt was the Queen of Jerusalem or some such trivial linkage. This is why we have "articles" about random spare electronic parts, and random dots on astronomical photographs. This is why we have "articles" that are lists of imaginary vehicles, weapons, people, etc. I thought notability wasn't temporary? I think it would be more honest if we admitted that "notability" is not as important as "partisanship", or at least only a rough guide...you can get anything into an article in Wikipedia if you can motivate a tiny group in favor of it. Is it *too* much to ask for someone cut'n'pasting a listing of his favorite obscure 19th century personalities to at least *try* to show why the listing shouldn't be deleted instantly as craven plagiarism? You learn in the 5th grade not to copy someone else's words as pass them off as yours; or you should. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's an issue for the original author. But the fact remains that a DNB entry is generally held to be a sign of notability and that Finlayson is probably a damn sight more notable than many of the transient minor modern "celebrities" who have long and detailed articles written by dribbling fanboys and girls who will doubtless have forgotten all about them in a couple of years! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        But 200-year-old fanboyism is somehow different? That's why hundreds of entries in the DNB have never gotten entries in the Wikipedia. Who knows how long the legacy of Charlie Sheen will last? DNB wasn't compiled as a gift to scholars yet unborn, it was to track the celebrities of the day! That's why our criterion is multiple independent significant sources, not who's-who directories. Getting listed in DNB doesn't seem to be one of the criteria in WP:PROF. (The succeeding entry in DNB is more than 4 times the length of this one, but unless some 21st century fanboy decides otherwise, James Finlayson DD (1758-1808) is never getting an article, even though he published 3 books!)--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The DNB is written by academics and experts, not fanboys. It's a scholarly publication, not a vanity exercise like many directories. The reason many people in the DNB have not yet got Wikipedia articles is because nobody has yet got around to writing them, not because they don't deserve them. It has also only ever contained biographies of people who were dead before their biographies were written and who were considered notable by experts in their field, not living "celebrities". Finlayson's article (by J. M. Rigg, himself a respected historian and literary scholar with his own entry in the DNB) was written at least 62 years after his death, for instance! It was indeed "compiled as a gift to scholars yet unborn" (and scholars of the day). That is exactly what it was for and is exactly what it continues to be for. I really wish you'd get your facts straight before making comments as by making claims like this you are only showing yourself to be ignorant of the source material. Stop confusing respected academic works with vanity and fan publications. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems a little circular to me- a directory entry is notable because it's written by someone else in that directory? Significance of a scientists's work would be show by other citations in the field, not a general biographical reference book. The cut'n'pasted material didn't visibly make any claims of notability for the subject (it wasn't even edited enough to take out the bibliogabble "8vo" at tne end of the book title!).
        
        Sure I'm ignorant of the subject. So's our reader! And if I can't figure out why some random dead white male is in the encyclopedia, why should our reader be compelled to search the archives of academic fandom seeking an explanation for the presence of this individual in the encyclopedia? I thought the mission of Wikipedia was to share the world's knowledge, not just to look down our virtual noses and say "you poor ignorant slob, how could you not know that a mention in some 19th century biographical dictionary is equivalent to both a Nobel Prize and a daytime Emmy in 21st century terms".
        
        Not only did we steal someone else's copyright-expired words, we didn't even steal good words! Rigg did a lamentably poor job of explaining Finlayson's significance to the world and context. We should be able to do better. But I'm getting pilloried for pointing this out. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No. You are "getting pilloried" for nominating an article for deletion when a small amount of investigation would have shown it to be notable, and the rest of the issues are all ones of cleanup which do not require the article to deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a small amount of investigation before nominating (see above) and evidently didn't get the sacred acceptable results. But please feel free to abuse me more. Not every dead British Army surgeon needs a Wikipedia article. The text was exceptionally uninformative, and copy'n'paste from copyright-expired sources is a hallmark of worthless articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Like worthless articles from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica? - Whpq (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. You clearly have no understanding of sources for British history if you continue to claim the DNB is a "directory". It's a dictionary. They are not the same thing. Just accept that the DNB is a reputable and respected source and not the vanity list of celebrities you seem to think it is. We don't expect our readers to know about a subject before they read about it. We do, however, expect our editors to do a little research and have a little understanding of the subject before they nominate articles for deletion. As for being a circular argument, you appear to be saying that an historian notable enough in his own right to receive a DNB entry after his own death shouldn't be writing articles about other people. What?! Should we discount biographical works written by people if they themselves become subjects of biographical works after their own deaths? This is a bizarre argument. You seem to be getting angry because your proposed deletion is being opposed by people who know more about historical sources than you do. This is just ridiculous. Mind you, since one of your edit summaries here was "There's at least 1,000,000 too many articles anyway...", I think we know what your attitude to Wikipedia is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, nominating an article for deletion shouldn't be like poking a wasp's nest. The original text was ineffective. If it had looked *then* like it looks *now* I wouldn't have nominated. And yes, if something was cut'n'pasted from the 1911 Britannica, I'd consider that at least plagiarism and at best a very dubious beginning to an article. I guess I'm not ignoring the differences between the Five Pillars as preached, and what actually gets practiced. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that this is where you list articles for deletion because their subjects are non-notable, not for cleanup because they're badly written. I agree that cutting and pasting is a very poor idea and that the article as written when you nominated it was very poor, but that's not what AfD is for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has always accepted that having a full article in the DNB is notable. Articles here on these people are our core material. WP is based on sourcing, and the importance of this particular source is widely acknowledged. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 22 May 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Li Hongyi

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

Delete: This article fails WP:BLP1E. Other dictionaries are better (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable (for now) son of Lee Hsien Loong. Notability is not inherited. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated by Strange Passerby. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:23, 19 May 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 as a hoax, user blocked. Materialscientist (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Richard Bunch

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

Contested PROD. No references for this supposed Disney Channel series. No listing on production company's IMDB page. Likely Hoax Catfish Jim & the soapdish 15:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax per nom. The article creator has created a number of articles in which verifiability is questionable. ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, and likely sock of banned user Jjwilliams98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked because of the same patterns of hoax Disney shows, so also suggesting a block of Jonfleminghubby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a lengthy corner-sit for 24.96.154.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) because of it. As for the article itself, a rather poor attempt to turn College Road Trip into a TV show. Nate • (chatter) 10:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Not a great hoax at that. Doh5678 Talk 15:55, 18 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vallance F.C.

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

Contested PROD. There is no indication that this club meets any semblance of notability. – Pee Jay 15:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This club fails the usual rule-of-thumb for football clubs as they haven't played in the FA Cup (they play at Level 12 in England), and there's nothing in the way of substantial third-party coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. —BETTIA— ^talk 09:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - team hasn't competed at a high enough level. Giant Snowman 12:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not played in the FA Cup or at least level 10 of the English football league system. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:58, 21 May 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 withdrawn by nominator. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elan Atias

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

No demonstration of notability, no third-party sources provided (the only source present in an earlier version of the article was a myspace page). Google News search for me turned up nothing, Google Web just his own site, various lyrics pages, and YouTube videos. The references on Together as One, the article on one of his albums, does appear to have some reviews of that album, but that's all I've found. This particular article seems to try to puff up notability by mentioning his name alongside a lot of more famous people and making a big deal out of minor collaborations (for instance, as far as I can tell, only 1 of the 8 items listed in the Discography is actually his own album). rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm rather baffled by this nomination. Elan Atias is a successful solo singer who has also been lead singer with The Wailers. He has had a #7 album on the Billboard Reggae chart ([13]), and he has had tracks featured in Sex and the City and the film 50 First Dates ([14]). There are plenty of sources found from a Google search, e.g. Allmusic bio, Allmusic review, PopMatters review, Billboard article, Billboard article, MTV, Perfil.com.--Michig (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC) + Vibe article.--Michig (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you'd be "baffled" if you looked at the poor state of the article, which was what gave me the impression the person was not notable. Neverhtless, I stand corrected; I guess there were sources buried deeper than I looked in my Google search; the sources that you've provided are I think sufficient. Nevertheless, it would be nice if someone could re-write the article so it doesn't read so much like a promo piece; it looks like there are enough sources out there that this article doesn't need to just be a list of other famous people this individual has worked with. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:28, 17 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal Beats

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

Notablilty in question, google search doesn't turn up much, only refs provided are the persons websites. (Nickname of someone who doesn't have a Wikipedia Article) Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 14:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find any third-party sources to confirm notability, does not seem to pass our guidelines. doomgaze (talk) 16:04, 21 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy

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

Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy no sourcing that meets WP:MEDRS and no additional sources found though google scholar or google books. Fails WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This reads like a bad machine translation of an advertisement for this treatment. Parts of the text defy any attempt to make sense of it: Kidney Disease is considered as one of the most difficult disease that can be controlled or treated, which makes medicine scientists feel so agonizing..... Kidney is such a precise organ that normal medicine macromolecular composition can not enter into inside kidney effectively, which means low medicine utilization. While Micro-Chinese Medicine Osmotherapy micronized medicine into very tiny micromolecule which can enter into inside kidney easier which can produce high medicine utilization, playing more effective role in repairing kidney. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEDRS, apart from anything else. Machine-translated spam, by the look of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it's probably machine translated. I don't agree that it makes no sense. It clearly claims that there is some kind of barrier that makes standard [Chinese?] medicines ineffective in that they don't reach the kidney. So they are using [Chinese?] medicines with smaller molecule sizes, which are not affected by the barrier. However, this sounds pretty suspicious to me. Our kidney article doesn't mention such a property of this organ. I am sure someone from WikiProject Medicine will comment sooner or later.
The reason for my vote: Maybe it's a reasonable topic. But this is certainly not the start for a reasonable article. It's just advertising for a clinic. Hans Adler 17:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Molecules are defined by their molecular geometry. You can't make them smaller without turning them into different molecules. To the extent that the article intelligibly claims otherwise, it would be an obvious hoax; which makes me wonder whether that was the claim it intended to make. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can't make molecules smaller. (Except for huge molecules which can actually be folded, but I am sure it has nothing to do with their claims.) Looking for contradictions by reading everything in the most absurd way possible is not particularly helpful. Hans Adler 18:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is a claim that theirs is ineffective in the kidney because it has "macro" molecules. Ours gets into the kidney and works better because it has "micro" molecules. If this means something, it's obvious advertising. If it doesn't, it's patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:27, 19 May 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 Tokio Hotel. Any relevant sourced content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 05:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kaulitz

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

Nominated per request of an IP. Their rationale: "zero notability outside of the band, if you remove the fancruft from the article you're only left with information about the band; someone mentioned that the singer has an article so Tom should too -- even if they're identical twins they don't share the same notability." Neutral as nominator. Rehevkor ✉ 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect (I'm the mentioned IP) I was going by the WP:MUSIC guideline, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." --194.150.65.40 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (same person^) I think the article was written by a foreigner, I started to fix it but gave up pretty quick. It's hopeless. --194.150.65.9 (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 3 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Google suggests at least a modicum of notability for this person (besides the Viagra incident). The article is pretty bad, no doubt about it, but AfD is not for cleanup. Find and add the sources. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (a little) to Tokio Hotel. It is not true that he and his brother have the same level of notability just because they're twins in the same band. His brother Bill has been covered as a stand-alone celebrity, but Tom hasn't. Any notable info about Tom's life can be covered at the band's article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am normally against removing articles with a large number of interwiki links. Strangely I noticed an absence of a de-wiki article though, which led me to the following discussion 5-6 years ago Personal notability might have changed since si I can't decide between keep and merge, but definetly not delete. Agathoclea (talk) 07:27, 15 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 13:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect and feel free to merge any verifiable content to the band's article. The Google search above demonstrates some coverage of this individual but I don't see any evidence that he's notable independent of the band and/or the Viagra incident. Close call, though. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Ginsengbomb. --Anthem of joy (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, can always visit this later if more interesting things can be said (and so, of course, do not delete the history). —Кузьма^討論 08:48, 18 May 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) 00:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oleander (album)

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

Deprodded with addition of "sources" which are just listings on Discogs.com. EP is not the subject of any non-trivial sources and fails WP:NALBUMS still. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know the article lacks notability, but I would like some recommendations regarding what to do with the information in it when it's deleted. I mean, I think it's notable enough to mention that the band released an EP, and perhaps to know what songs were included in it, or who played in it. Any recommendation is welcome. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The EP is already mentioned in the text of the band's article. In that case, the Discogs source (or Allmusic if it lists it) can be used to verify that it exists, but there isn't enough sourcing out there to verify much more than a tracklist. Precedent is, if you can't make any more of it than a track list, it should be redirected or deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 3 May 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, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band's page. Not notable on its own. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 16 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 13:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources which demonstrate notability. It does appear that most verifiable information from the article is already present in the band's page. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:59, 17 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitar Evtimov

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

Non-notable footballer who has not played in a fully professional league. Oleola (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate when he plays a game etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He clearly fails both WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:02, 21 May 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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College Premier Division

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

Non-Notable collegiate rugby competition, no coverage outside competing schools. WP is not a sports results website. Mtking (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - College Premier Division is the Top-Tier of Collegiate Rugby in the USA. According to the Notability (Sports) page, "A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable." ^[1] By that definition, it would make sense that an article describing the details, history & make-up of the top collegiate level of a sport would also be notable. I.E. If UC-Berkley wins the CPD, then that season would generally be notable. By the same logic, the league that they played in to win that title would also have to be notable.

As to the "no coverage outside competing schools", there are several rugby websites, etc. that cover the sport. Additionally, ESPNU/ESPN3 will be providing live coverage of the semi-finals & finals of the competition. Matthew MattSalt77 —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Rugby may not be officially supported in the majority of American universities (the notable exception being Cal though there are others also^[2]) but that does not diminish its importance both historically and as a bon-fide sporting competition. Collegiate rugby is at the foundation of the Ivy League, all College football and the NCAA. Even in the US there is a semi-professional league that has been running for 14 years but world-wide rugby is a major professional sport with a World Cup that is the fourth largest sporting event globaly (after the soccer World Cup, the Summer Olympics and the Tour de France) and it is set to become an Olympic sport in Rio 2016. The American team for this event (and future World Cups) will undoubtedly be replete with athletes that have developed and honed their skills in the College Premier Division, this competition is where US rugby will develop and nurture their future national representative talent. In twenty years time we will be glad that a record of the early years of this competition was kept so expeditiously! Mbwa mwitu (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and how exactly does that demonstrate that the article meets WP:GNG ? Mtking (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and how does it not meet the criteria? As discussed above, it meets the criteria for a notable collegiate (top-tier) league in the US. Please provide evidence that it doesn't to further the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattsalt77 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 May 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 13:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MattSalt77 basically. This is the top collegiate level of Rugby and therefore notable. It seems to receive a decent amount of coverage on Google News. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted prior to closure Hasteur (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guns in the sky

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

Declined PROD by author with no attempt to resolve PROD issues. PROD reason was "Non-notable team per WP:NSPORT. No significant reliable coverage." Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a non-notable team playing in a youth rec league. Not even close to meeting anything in WP:NSPORT. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Demonstrably non-notable and not meeting the guidelines at WP:NSPORT. However, it's certainly making a claim of significance, and there's nothing blatantly incredible about the claim, so I don't think A7 really applies. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask just for my own knowledge, should a claim actually be backed up with some sort of source though? If that's the case, any article that has a claim of significance would be ineligible for A7 in that regard. I did a quick Google search for this team and found nothing related to them. Either way the article should be deleted, but I was just wondering about the whole "claim of significance" thing. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, my understanding of speedy delete is that if the article makes a credible claim of notability, sourced or not, the article isn't subject to speedy delete. Speedy delete is only for the most obvious deletions that wouldn't be contentious (ie: 99 out of 100 editors would agree). AFD is for everything else. The only real question is "is the claim credible". I won't !vote in this one, but my guess is that the article wouldn't be eligible for speedy, but plenty reasonable for AFD. Of course, now that I said that, some admin will speedy delete it ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Dennis has it right. The claim to notability does not have to be sourced in order for an article to pass A7. The question with this one is the "credible" bit. I considered declining the speedy myself but I'm a bit on the fence. The article is a little on the silly side, and if others feel the article's claims to significance aren't credible I'm not sure I disagree. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the claims of being professional and the claim that they changed the league I didn't think the A7 criteria really qualified. I prodded it to try for the lower bough on the deletion tree. Hasteur (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cowra, New South Wales. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumgillica, New South Wales

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

Cucumgilliga is a homestead within the bounded locality of Cowra, New South Wales . There is no locality known as Cucumgillica. It doesn't exist so hardly any need for an article on a non-existent place Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete. Have not been able to find any reliable sources proving its existence. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crisco, there is (or was) a school at this location with the same name, and a single family home/farm, but as a separate locality, I am not finding proof.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge When one searches using the various spellings, one finds numerous hits in Google Books and Google Scholar relating to matters such as the collection of specimens. Being distinctive, these names are useful as search terms and it is our policy that Wikipedia performs the function of a gazetteer. They should therefore not be made into red links. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, having frequently driven along Lachlan Valley Way, I can verify that there's not much there, certainly not any significant towns in that area. With that said, it's the name of a local landmark and a plausible search term, and should be redirected to Cowra, New South Wales. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 22:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete localities are inherently notable but homesteads not. Colonel Warden's argument does not address how this is notable just some vague metaphor. LibStar (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cowra, New South Wales per Lankiveil. Orderinchaos 22:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lankiveil. As it is a reasonable search term, a redirect is far more appropriate than deletion. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 25 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ballbank, New South Wales

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

Ballbank is an unbounded locality within the bounded locality of Cobramunga, New South Wales about which there is nothing to say beyond the current stub, which may be included in the Cobramunga article. A redirect to Cobramunga will suffice. Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If that is the case, then this discussion is unnecessary and a requested merge discussion would be more appropriate. However merging to an article that does not exist is a little premature, perhaps. Regardless of the intricate technicalities of bounded and unbounded localities, the locality of Ballbank exists and there are reliable sources attesting to it -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Mattinbgn (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1: "nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Colonel Warden (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, if that rationale is true, then the nominator should have created the Cobramunga article and redirected the Ballbank article there. There is no need to take this to AFD. Tavix | Talk 15:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a speedy keep situation, but the most sensible solution does appear to be to simply move the article from Ballbank to Cobramunga (leaving a redirect in its wake) and editing appropriately. Orderinchaos 22:19, 23 May 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. This guy would bave been better off climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Sydney Harbour Bridge Protest

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

One off event that has no ongoing notability. WP:NOTNEWS The-Pope (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly WP:NOTNEWS. in one month's time everyone would have forgotten about it. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, just delete it then. Hobbs&hemmingway

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The protester is not notable; the event is not notable; and his cause is barely identifiable, let alone notable. This sort of article is better suited to the Wikinews site. Deterence ^Talk 04:01, 21 May 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) Atmoz (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes, New South Wales

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

Barnes is an unbounded locality within the bounded locality of Moama, New South Wales about which there is nothing to say beyond the current stub, which may be included in the Moama article. A redirect to Moama will suffice. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1: "nominator...fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Colonel Warden (talk) 06:37, 18 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering expo

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

Non notable event or an article on an event, the notability of which is not clearly established. The article had previously been deleted under G11. Shovon (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem notable in the least. No reliable sources to prove notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non notable event.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:44, 22 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Howe

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Unremarkable contestant on a reality series. Nikki♥311 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 21:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WWE Tough Enough#Revived series. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 11 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable by any standard. Harley Hudson (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 17 May 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) 00:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Mansour

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

Unremarkable biography. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - after a google search complicated by more notable people with the same name I agree with the nominator. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is one source with significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a reprint from the Guardian. Still not what I'd call significant coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is it not significant coverage? It is an article solely about Mansour. It is not actually an reprint from the British newspaper The Guardian, as I also thought at first, but an article from the Tanzanian newspaper of the same name hosted on its own publisher's web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIO looks for the person to be the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of each other. Just not seeing that being met here. The claim of notability here is that this person traveled, by motorcycle throughout the world, which I'm not finding all that notable.--RadioFan (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more reliable reports, I am open to moving to keep. I do agree with Radios comment though, why is he notable, a notable what? Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't preface my comment with the word "keep". I'm offering that source as one that can contribute towards notability, but doesn't by itself establish it. I also see no reason to doubt that the Ethiopian Herald article offered by the article author is genuine. Let's remember that sources don't have to be available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is poorly formatted for a good quality Wikipedia article, but newspaper references show that he is notable (GNG) so the article should be improved, not deleted. Ougro (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)— Ougro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It is still not clear how this person is notable. The only claim to notability here is a very long motorcycle ride. If this were notable, I would think references beyond Italian ones would be available.--RadioFan (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian references? The ones that I see in the article are South African, Tanzanian, Ethiopian and Egyptian, all written in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fair enough, I see those additional references now, but it's still not clear how this person is notable. --RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't belong here it belongs on myspace or facebook. Its not a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 4 May 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The claim to notability is not unreasonable, that of being a megadistance motorcyclist in advancing a political agenda. What does seem to be lacking is sourcing. I found a Google search for the specific phrase "Omar Mansour" + motorcycle to be altogether underwhelming. The style of the article is atrocious, but that's not the question here. I'm just not seeing significant sourcing... Carrite (talk) 15:51, 11 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator. Poorly written article with multiple issues. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:51, 18 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concourse, Bronx

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

This article is nothing more than a Wikipedia invention. It's not even original research as there simply is no such thing as a "Concourse" neighborhood. Article sourcing indicates that there are "West Concourse" and "East Concourse" and "Concourse Village" neighborhoods, but they are too small to support their own article. Only sourcing is a report from Community Board 4, and that sourcing is inadequate as CB 4 includes an entire different neighborhood, Highbridge. I raised this issue on the talk page a month ago, and tagged its issues, but there was no reply. I also sought to rescue the article by editing ("cluster of neighborhoods" was my language) but it is unsalvageable. There is neither a neighborhood nor "cluster of neighborhoods" called "Concourse." There is of course the Grand Concourse, but it goes through numerous neighborhoods. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No idea how to proceed on judging this topic's notability, but a Google search suggests that this neighborhood exists. There's also this huge PDF on the neighborhood from Big Apple Greeters: [15] The PDF lists the same street boundaries for "Concourse Village" as this article on "Concourse" does, so they appear to be referring to the same thing. Any other thoughts? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also just read your post on the talk page and you seem to be aware of this, so I may be a bit off the mark with my comment above. Am I right in inferring that your concern is that there is a "Concourse Village" (I'm totally unfamiliar with the Bronx) but there is no such thing as "Concourse"? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's right. Concourse Village is a long-established housing complex. This article contends that there is an entire neighborhood called "Concourse," which just isn't so. That link relates just to Concourse Village. It's possible Concourse Vilage may warrant an article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, okay, gotcha. Sorry for misunderstanding you at first. I'm adding a delete vote below. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above conversation with nominator and his original points here and on the article's talk page. I can't find any evidence that "Concourse" exists. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 11 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it can not be verified, and does not exist except in Realtors' ads. Um, folks, it just doesn't exist. ;-) Bearian (talk) 20:38, 23 May 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) 00:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Laribee

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

A career minor leaguer with a minor claim to fame - he struck out seven times in a 33 inning game, a record for most strikeouts in a professional game. Meh. That's all there is. He's not notable.– Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable for holding the record for most strikeouts in a professional game. Just saying this is not notable doesn't make it so. Francis Bond (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that he's notable doesn't make it so, either. If anything, it could fall under WP:ROUTINE for routine coverage, or WP:BLP1E. Now you tell me why you think it's notable. More specifically, why does he need a standalone article when this "accomplishment" is listed at Longest professional baseball game? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If his accomplishment is listed at Longest professional baseball game, why not redirect there? Rlendog (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:BLP1E quite applies here. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." He was certainly covered in reliable sources in the context of the rest of his minor league career, and remains covered in reliable sources, such as Baseball Reference. Those are not sources we use to demonstrate notability on their own, but I think they do avoid WP:BLP1E. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect - He played over 1000 minor league games and holds a professional record, and has significant coverage at least here and here, which makes me inclined to say he marginally meets notability. But since there is not that much to say about him other than his record, it may be appropriate to redirect to Longest professional baseball game. Rlendog (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The inclusion-worthiness bar for professional baseball players is so low (play 1 game in the big leagues) that there is a tendency to want to keep out anyone who can't pass that measure. The fact is, there are other ways to get to the dance. Riendog cites a couple pieces of evidence that this is an individual who is the subject of multiple instances of independent coverage. One might argue One Event. One might argue that a holder of a professional baseball record is notable. Me? I'm an inclusionist. What possibly would be gained for the project by deletion? Carrite (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 11 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Russ Laribee is the King of Strikeout. Definite keep. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:46, 18 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Network of Alternative Financial Institutions

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG. no real indepth coverage, they've hosted a few things but lacking coverage about the organisation itself. [16]. gbooks merely confirms its existence. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 May 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 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:54, 17 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having Trouble Sneezing

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

Contested prod, I just don't see or find anything notable about this song/track to pass general notability requirements. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 4 May 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 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it already - is the nomination really so controversial that two relists are required before deleting? Harley Hudson (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this an advertising jingle or something? How in the world could this pass WP:SONG? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, even frivolous.--Hokeman (talk) 15:59, 17 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinocchio (album)

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

Delete per WP:NALBUMS, while there is no significant coverage in the media. — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as many other Korean-related albums receive little coverage from Western publications. Silvergoat (talk∙contrib) 08:41, 8 May 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 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We may need a Korean speaker for this. Neutral on the deletion issue. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article may not meet the notability guidelines for music. I mean, you can't have an article about every single album out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.140.165 (talk) 23:09, 11 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:53, 17 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Extreme Skiing Championship

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

Dubious sport event sparsely mentioned by the media. I consider its notability doubtful. Also the fact that the article was created by Michaelcozad (talk · contribs) might raise some WP:COI concerns, since this event "was the idea of Michael Cozad". bender235 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article currently stays as WP:PROMOTION, but there are a lot of sources like ESPN - WESC still postponed due to weather, ESPN - World Extreme Skiing Champs returns, ESPN - Guerlain Chicherit returns, ESPN - Low tide in Valdez, The Ski Channel - Tailgate Alaska announces return of World Extreme Skiing Championships, and even U.S. Department of Commerce Report on Alaska Domestic Market Report - Alaska Travel and Tourism Industry Sector. However, it seems the event is postponed indefinitely (and maybe even renamed, according to [17]), making most of the sources fail per WP:NOTNEWS which states routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. But if you search for World Extreme Skiing Championship(+s) there are still some sources, especially under the books section: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Nimuaq (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 May 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 May 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:53, 17 May 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 New Zealand women's cricket team in England in 2010. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand women's cricket team against Ireland in England in 2010

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/New Zealand women's cricket team against Ireland in England in 2010

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

as per WP:NOTNEWS. WP does not create articles for individual sporting results (unless a major major game). the result is covered in http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/439403.html LibStar (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per its failure of the GNG and being completely unremarkable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New Zealand women's cricket team in England in 2010: this match can be easily merged into the larger article which covers the rest of the games on the tour. Harrias ^talk 17:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - well it certainly doesn't fail GNG as it is a women's match of ODI standard, the highest women's level below Test cricket. I agree with Harrias, merge it into New Zealand women's cricket team in England in 2010. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it would fail WP:GNG. Women's cricket doesn't get significant coverage in mainstream press let alone a match involving a minor cricket nation of Ireland. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Libstar, read WP:CRIN. Women's cricket gets plenty of coverage, if you know where to look. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

provide sources then of signifcant coverage of this specific match. LibStar (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure what you're understanding of cricket is, but any match that is of Women's One Day International standard automatically meets WP:GNG, WP:ATH and WP:CRIN to name but a few. I'm not going to look for significant coverage because I'm in favour of a merge. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Women's One Day International standard automatically meets WP:GNG, WP:ATH " is simply not true. WP:ATH applies to individuals not matches. WP:GNG is only passed when significant coverage in reliable sources exists, which does not in this case. WP:CRIN applies to teams and players and not individual matches. you are mistaken. we don't create individual articles for every international cricket match. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think User:LibStar is right here about the notability of individual matches unless there is specific notability because of a particular feat or significance in the wider context of cricket; merging it into the larger article about the whole tour seems the sensible route. Johnlp (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I suppose, technically speaking, this article is about a series that happened to have consisted of only one match, and precedent seems to be that we have articles about international cricket series. Let's also note that the Ireland women's cricket team has full Test and ODI status, so the statement above that Ireland is a "minor cricket nation" does not apply to the women's team. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:33, 23 May 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) 00:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Frketić

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY Timbouctou (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.

Comment. The English-language article for his team NK Kupa was prodded with the following reason: "Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:N. Football club currently plays in Croatian 5th level, never appeared in top level division nor national cup competition." The corresponding Croatian-language article hr:Kristian_Frketić was deleted a total of four times in 2007 and 2008. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Timbouctou and Dr. V. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G4 if applicable, else delete due to lack of notability as stated above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is getting silly, the same article created by the same user Kikifrka (talk · contribs) was already deleted once before, someone just needs to explain to them the relevant policies or they'll just come back the third time... Looking at the username and knowing Croatian nickname customs, I wouldn't be surprised if it was an autobiography. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even his club isn't notable. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:01, 21 May 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, unambiguous promotion, and as Peridon points out, borderline patent nonsense - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Townhall

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

fails WP:CORP. potential hoax or at the very least blatant self promotion. nothing in gnews [18], despite the grand claims of being involved with notable people. lacks reliable sources. also note the excessive and unnecessary use of categories. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled What does "The Global Townhall (TGT) is a Kansas City based company dedicated to collecting ideas from successful people around the world to help main street excel." mean? Anyone know? Peridon (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. I have checked the references, and they all suffer from one or more of the following problems: from the Global Townhall's own website, Twitter page, or other non-independent source; from Facebook, Twitter, or a nother non-reliable source; does not mention Global Townhall (this applies to many of the "references"); mentions someone who has some connection to Global Townhall, s and mentions in passing that connection, with no other mention of Global Townhall at all. In fact I wouldn't oppose a speedy deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:43, 18 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trophic

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

Since all these subjects are partial matches, they should not be included in a disambiguation page, and as a result the page should not exist. Muhandes (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not a dab, although perhaps it should redirect to Wiktionary ratherthan be deleted? Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki redirects are not encouraged and only possible as soft redirect (as far as I know). --Muhandes (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to Nutrition --Cybercobra (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a good idea because "Trophic" is not mentioned in Nutrition, and might not be what a reader is looking for. Removing it entirely will list all partial matches as search results and let the reader choose. --Muhandes (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Cybercobra (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Muhandes' comments. Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let the search bar do the work. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:37, 22 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Random Film Festival

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

declined speedy. now having to go through the effort of a full AfD when looks like clear hoax to me. nothing in gnews [19]. and with ridiculous text like: Every year the festival takes place on a randomly selected time, in a random venue. The location is selected by opening wikipedia.org and clicking Random article repeatedly, until reaching a page representing a place with a local population.The date of the Festivals Opening Night is selected by using the True Random Number Generator at random.org. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not a hoax, well sort of since I don't think it really happens except online. It sounds like a fun idea, but hasn't yet got the attention of the world as shown by zero hits on a Google news archive search. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found this here, they actually travelled to the first location and showed the selected films to people on a notebook. http://vimeo.com/16131643 So I guess it is an actual film festival... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.250.118.9 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N. The claim of being first and oldest, is interesting, as the festival is only just now seeking entries for its second year.[20] If it gains the required notability in the future, an undeletion of the article might be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the IRFF is far from notable and is probably a hoax. Funktapus (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...What? All joking aside this clearly fails WP:N. Maybe that will not always be the case, but for now I see no option but deletion. Or perhaps userfy. I do hope they get notability some day, but it should not be by having a WP page. Colincbn (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it was a declined speedy delete. so we are now going through this whole AfD process. LibStar (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it considered acceptable for me to just copy this to a user:sub-page? If I do will I need to remove categories for them to not be included in that catagories lists? Colincbn (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you have a good faith interest in improving the article off of mainspace, simply ask the closing admin to userfy it to User:Colincbn/International Random Film festival for continued work. This is an reasonable request and may allow an eventual return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks, I'll do that in hopes it can be returned someday. Colincbn (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, and feel free to ask for help. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:40, 23 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectCodeMeter

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

Contested PROD. Original reasoning was Not need only three notable software items. See also link is sufficient.. Article also has no sources and so qualifies as WP:OR. ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; my searching shows no evidence of any, let alone of significant, coverage in a reliable source. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this article covers a software which is an important milestone in Cost Estimation and Project Management technology, as it's partially automated. The validity of this article is as any of the software articles listed on this page (which have no better references): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software

Franklin90210 (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Yet another non-notable software product relating to the supervision of computer programmers: an automatic source code analysis software, which estimates software development time and cost, measures code quality, and team productivity. Yes, the "project management" software page is still a mess. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article lacks 3rd party refs needed to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 17:13, 17 May 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) 19:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pale Moon (software)

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

Non-notable modification of Firefox. No sources are provided, and after searching I found no news articles or reliable reviews. It's been given multiple 'awards' from file hosting websites, which are unreliable. It fails WP:GNG. Pale Moon (song) should be moved back to Pale Moon if this article is deleted. Meph^talk 03:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Doesn't seem to assert notability at all. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have suggested merging into Firefox, but there isn't even anything to merge. —Tim Pierce (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Tim Pierce. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Article updated with primary sources; still no reliable third-party sources. Meph^talk 15:44, 20 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot House

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

Non-notable dorm. This was a contested prod several years ago (see Talk:Eliot House#Prod removal for deletion discussion) and in all that time nobody has found a single reference to substantiate notability. Ma^t_chups 02:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone adds references to reliable sources that actually discuss the topic of this article in depth. The current references all discuss various notable Harvard graduates in depth, mentioning in passing that these people lived at Eliot House during their Harvard years. If notability rubbed off in this way, we would have to write an article about every brick used to build Harvard. That being said, perhaps this dorm is notable based on in-depth analysis of its history or architecture, but the current references don't demonstrate it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly non-notable. Along with every brick it is constructed of. Qworty (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the sake of having a complete Template:HarvardResidentialHouses. Notable enough. -- œ ^™ 20:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eliot House features in enough memoirs by well-known people, movies, etc., to be "notable" for Wikipedia. I just deleted a large chunk of the article because I judged it to be a copyvio of this webpage. If that page were used judiciously as a source, instead of being copied, I think someone could make a nice article. --Orlady (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The web page you mentioned is at harvard.edu. We can consider that a reliable source, if the article survives, but it is not independent, and so cannot be cited to support keeping. Ma^t_chups 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but the article currently cites 13 other sources, seven of which are completely independent of the university. My "keep" !vote is based on the number and credibility of the sources that feature Eliot House. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those sources may be credible, but they only support the specific facts of who lived there, not the notability of the dorm. Just as a newspaper box score of a minor league game supports the result of the game but not the notability of the players.Ma^t_chups 03:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Eliot House may be mentioned in memoirs, but casual mentions of course don't satisfy any inclusion criteria. Beyond that, having a "complete" template is a terrible reason to keep an article ... the answer is more likely that some or all of the entries lack notability. Generally speaking, it's highly unlikely that any dorm, anywhere, is notable, and this is not precisely a building steeped in antiquity. Ravenswing 04:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are probably a few notable dorms, such as the oldest, the largest, or the first coeducational dorm, if anyone can figure out what they are. Or for that matter, any that meet the general notability criteria. But not this one. Ma^t_chups 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Orlady. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Orlady. Yes, there are sources, but notability is awful thin. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orlady. Usually I'm not in favor of keeping dormitories, but this is an exception. If this were Britain, this house would easily have a blue plaque given the amount of historic figures who resided there and the coverage is significant enough to pass WP:GNG, not only "mentions" as claimed above.--Oakshade (talk) 19:59, 23 May 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Lateef Usta

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

This article appears to rely entirely on primary sources and fail the notability guidelines at WP:PROF. Its claims to notability, such as "He is also creating pave for professional art researchers through his lectures, papers and publications", appear unsubstantiated by the sources, which simply confirm the existence of his publications. One claim even cites his own Wikipedia article as its own reference, which is an impressive tautology, but not super-convincing. Khazar (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absurd promotional article for a person who fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, etc. Contains ridiculous puffery such as "His contributions towards Art and Culture are blooming day by day and this promising curator is expected to make great and historic contributions in the arena of Art, Culture and Heritage." Should be scrubbed off the face of the Earth for that sentence alone. Qworty (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I don't believe it's significant to the vote here, but just so no one else sees this and decides to track them down too, I've gone ahead and reverted this user's unsourced, somewhat peacock additions of Usta's accomplishments to several other articles. Khazar (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. does not meet WP:PROF or WP:N--Sodabottle (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. lack of significance; not wiki article Raman raman 09:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 24 May 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) 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bulford

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

The article is based on a single autobiography of a man who was present as a low-ranking officer when his unit was called in to control the mutiny. According to Worldcat, this book was self-published by its editor, which leads me to question its usability as source on the grounds of reliability and independence.

I attempted to find other sources to support the artilce, but had little success.

Vanilla Google searches for various terms ("Battle of Bulford", "Bulford mutiny", etc) either turn up Wikipedia mirrors or unrelated content. Google Books has zero relevant results.
There are no mentions of this event on the Australian War Memorial website.
Of the Australian mutinies mentioned in the Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918, the only army ones I can find ocurred in France with battalions of the 1st AIF.
The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History does not mention the event, either specifically or in its general entry on "Mutinies".

As such, I believe the article should be deleted, as it does not meet the general notability guideline: although the event may well have ocurred, the article's information cannot be verified through significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Considering that the mutiny appears to have been short and without major incident, I would be suprised if such sources did exist. If deleted, the claims made by this article should be excised from Bulford Camp and Royal School of Artillery. -- saberwyn 01:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the nom, I cannot find corroboration of the existence of such an event anywhere else, including through searches like "Bulford Camp mutiny," "Bulford Camp insurrection," and so on. Newspaper articles of the time mentioning Bulford Camp do not say anything about such a mutiny. I agree with the above remarks that the event (or at least something like it) may have happened, but without being recorded anywhere other than this guy's diary it does not reach encyclopedic notability. If anyone can turn up independent reporting of the incident, though, I'll be happy to revisit my view. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If no sources can be found for this event, it may be an instance of WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reading this carefully, it seems to fail notability in a more general sense. We know that troops after both world wars, not just ANZACs, got restless waiting to be demobilised. Sometimes this got as far as soldiers insisting that as they had only enlisted for the duration, and the war was over, they didn't see why they should put up with officers ordering them around and wanted to be on the next boat home. Occasionally it went much further. Rumours of what might be happening elsewhere are bound to spread in that atmosphere. There is nothing in this account that suggests that anything more actually happened than the officers fearing that they had lost control of their men and other units being called in to keep them on the camp for the couple of days it lasted. On the face of it not something that would make an official history, and not something that would get into Wikipedia today unless a great press story was made of it. --AJHingston (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find a decent source. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks like the "riots" that led to the carving of the Bulford Kiwi, but written up (and possibly named) decades later by someone trying to produce an interesting memoir. PWilkinson (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peter Stanley's recently published (and quite comprehensive) account of misbehavior in the AIF, Bad Characters, also doesn't mention this incident. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 22 May 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. Though it's borderline, the tone of this article is promotional. Therefore, I'm going to delete this under CSD G11. That way if someone wants to write a sourced encyclopedic article on this school from a neutral point of view, they can do so. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Army School Barrackpore

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

Non notable school, the article consist of non referenced statements about the age of the building it and is written pretty much like an ads, the article is also not written in a encyclopedic way, its tone is completely raw like a statement about careers "For jobs in Army School Barrackpore, visit the school office or visit their school website. You can see it on Google.com Search.", also wikipedia is not an article about every single school on earth. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not shown via RS. Chester Markel (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable school. Qworty (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per our usual practice with articles about verifiable high/secondary schools. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 23 May 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) 00:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

House Hasson Hardware

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

Does not meet general notability or any other kind. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 May 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) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this absurd example of blatant WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the general notability guidelines, let alone WP:COMPANY. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 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) 00:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Owen McKibbin

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

Non-notable BLP. BLGM7 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Disregarding only ref of subject's 'official site', as-yrt-unreferenced BLP; not sure if 'most prolific cover model in Men's Health history' meets WP:N, but best claim found; only minor roles in IMDB, unable to find in-depth coverage beyond WP:SPS of anything thing other than his injury and list of appearances in/on magazines, beyond this and now author. Dru of Id (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 11 May 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) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. lacks significant coverage [21]. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 09:19, 17 May 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 Uncommon Valor: A Vietnam Story. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Thorburn

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

This individual doesn't appear to meet WP:SOLDIER and no reliable sources are provided to support claims of notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Subject of article does not meet criteria set forth in WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. However, the subject is the subject of the song which is documented int he article Uncommon Valor: A Vietnam Story; therefore, I propose that the title be redirected to the article regarding the song, and any referenced material can be merged to that article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is the subject of a movie, a song, and received multiple distinguished flying cross.--v/r - T P 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject being awarded multiple DFCs does not mean that the subject passes WP:SOLDIER. The movie and the song maybe notable, but the subject of both may not necessarily be. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is significantly about the subject and is in post-production.--v/r - T P 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the movie is notable, but whether the subject of the movie is notable. Sometimes the subject of a movie is not notable, whereas the movie itself is. The subject still needs to pass one or all of the following: WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG, WP:NN. At this point I have not seen any significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. A google search for the Staff Sergeant John A. Thorburn brings up hits from mostly sources that fall under WP:SPS and therefore do not add to possible notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just altogether wrong. The fact that a movie was made about the subject implies notability of the subject. Movies arn't made about the average joe. Songs as well; unless your phone number is 867-5309.--v/r - T P 00:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because a movie and a song, and the focus of both is the father of one of the band members who created the song, doesn't make the subject himself automatically notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't apply here. That would apply if the subject was mentioned in the movie or a character in the movie or even played a role in the movie. In this case, the subject is the subject of the movie. Invoking WP:NOTINHERITED here is like saying that the subject of major news articles isn't notable even if the articles and their publishers are.--v/r - T P 14:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating that something does not apply doesn't make that necessarily so. A subject of a news story may not be themselves inherently notable, but the event involving the individual maybe what is notable per WP:BLP1E. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case where a movie was made about the subject. A song was made about the subject. Movies and songs are not made about non-notable folks. If that were so, I'd be on Taylor Swift's next album. Perhaps if it were only a movie or only a song, I might sway that WP:BLP1E suggests including the content as a section in an article for the song or movie. But he is the subject of multiple independent significant works: the movie and the song. That passes the spirit and intention of WP:N even if it's not the literal meaning.--v/r - T P 14:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although a movie is to be made about the subject, and a song was written about the subject, the song, which the movie draws inspiration from, was written because the subject is the father of one of the band members. There would be no other reason other then the relation of the subject and the band member why the subject was chosen in the first place. Therefore, WP:NOTINHERETED comes into play. The question is, is the subject of this article, independently notable? If it were not for the efforts of the son, and the subsequent expansion upon the efforts, the answer would clearly be no, IMHO.

Now, is the subject of this article central to the movie, as a character, as the movie as a biographical piece, then the subject is notable within the context off the movie, but is otherwise not notable by himself. Therefore, I can see the content of this article being subsummed into the article regarding the movie, and a redirect created; however, for the subject of this article to have their own article means that the subject is notable in and of himself, which he clearly is not, per WP:ANYBIO, and specifically WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess on this point we'll just have to disagree.--v/r - T P 13:14, 23 May 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) 00:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find his military awards to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. WP:N and its subsidiary pages are guidelines, not policies, which are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions". The large number of military honors support making an exception here. Chester Markel (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In creating WP:SOLDIER editors from WikiProject Military History had a significant discussion as to what military awards would constitute well-known and significant award or honor under WP:ANYBIO. And after the lengthy discussion only single (or rarely multiple) awarding of a first-rate military award, or multiple awardings of a second-rate military award, was constituted as meeting aforementioned criteria. Otherwise you would get individuals who would be considered notable for getting a low rate medal, that is relatively insignificant to those is the know.

Therefore, the criteria that must be met is the second part of WP:ANYBIO, or any other part of WP:SOLDIER. From what I have read the subject, minus being the subject of a film and a song, is not independently notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly nothing wrong or invalid about disagreeing with the threshold of WP:MILPEOPLE. While I'm an advocate of that essay and would like to see it restored to guideline status, I do think that the part on awards is too strict. Even though the subject doesn't have specific medals, stating that the overall recognition is sufficient for notability doesn't invalidate his keep rationale, especially noting that there are exceptions to the rules. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the subject received multiple Distinguished Flying Cross. I may be wrong, but I was under the assumption that is one step below the Silver Cross which is a second rate military award; is that right? If that's the case, it's a significant award to be received twice.--v/r - T P 00:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DFC is a 7th rate medal (overall), and 5th rate medal for heroism. In comparison the Silver Star is a 3rd rate medal for heroism, and a fourth rate overall.

In the creation of WP:MILPEOPLE I suggested including recipients of lower then second rate medals, such as third rate medals of heroism three times should account to notability, and consensus was against that suggestion. If their is a change in consensus, I would be all for it; however, giving my previous proposal, the subject would need to receive the DFC five times, to be notable under the proposal. An Oak leaf cluster only counts for a second awarding.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I wasn't positive but what I'd dug up made it seem like a 3rd rate medal.--v/r - T P 14:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK; military medals order of precedence can be a a bit tricky to those not having the experience of looking at them. I myself had argued in the past that a BSM for valor should be part of what others should judge an individual for being sufficient for inclusion, but consensus stated otehrwise. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Uncommon Valor: A Vietnam Story. Notability is unclear as indicated in the conversation above. A merge insures that potentially notable material remains on wikipedia. --Pink Bull 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with TP. That he is the subject of a movie is evidence of notability, not a WP:INHERITED issue. Indeed since the movie is a documentary that would be a reliable source towards meeting GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Films aren't necessarily reliable so I don't see how they can be utilized in a notability analysis. --Pink Bull 15:54, 25 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Lark

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

Subject appears almost totally unnotable; most of her appearances are in shorts which do not themselves have articles of their own. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "appears almost totally unnotable" is a statement at odds with research in reliable sources, as she does indeed have extensive genre coverage. And a film not having articles means either A. no one has written the article yet, or B. someone did and the film proved non-notable. So while it would seem that Ms. Lark would be hard pressed to meet WP:ENT, the article is not asserting that such is her claim to notablity. The assertions for (genre) notability is for her being a spokesmodel and scream queen... and THAT assertion seems to be easily verifiable... and she does have coverage in multiple sources for the last eleven years.[22] Strange assertion, sure... as it does not rank up there with the "glory" of being an Oscar or Nobel prize winner... but as an assertion it meets the GNG and passes WP:BIO. Even a minor notability, and even in a genre field, can meet guideline, and be notability none-the-less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really don't think spooksmodel for a horror magazine is up to WP:BIO's notability standards, and a scream queen is by definition an actress. So if she doesn't meet WP:ENT--and I don't believe that she does--then she doesn't belong. If it's kept, it should also be stubbified. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:BIO nor the general notability guide say that being a spokesmodel or scream queen are automatic grounds for a declaration on non-notability. What they both DO instruct is that significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are ground for inclusion. And Fangoria is considered a quite important publication to its genre. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She appears to qualify in WP:ENT under having a significant cult following in her genre. She appears to be a selected person for various 'women in horror' documentaries, interviews, character inspiration, etc. She had a significant role in one movie and that movie barely qualifies as notable (and doesn't have an article, though I believe it could). There are possibly more movies upcoming... But really it's her apparent cult following as evinced in several of the references that makes me lean toward keep. Felisse (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails the requirements of WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. The entry is clearly self-promotional, violating WP:AUTO, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI, and is the work of at least three previously identified WP:SPA accounts. One of the accounts was blocked twice for its self-promotional edits to the entry [23]. Qworty (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which sounds more like a decent reason to fix issues, rather than toss an improvable article. If ANY editor causes problems with articles, we address the editor (as you have noted was done) not delete an article to prevent improper attention. If that were the solution, Wikipedia would be considerably smaller. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:30, 17 May 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) 00:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage in WP:RS meets WP:GNG. COI editing is not, by itself, grounds for the deletion of notable material, nor is purported failure to satisfy the requirements of a specific notability guideline, when the standards of the general notability guideline are met. Chester Markel (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She got a few relatively minor mentions in reliable sources; I don't see how this rises to notability standards. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage in independent reliable sources does not appear to be substantial. --Pink Bull 15:41, 25 May 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 Toe (band). (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Sentimentality "Tour Edition"

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

No real notability of this mentioned in article or elsewhere. Main album article is just a redirect to band page. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 07:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. If we had an article about the original version of this album, I'd suggest adding a "Tour Edition" section to that article and redirecting this one. That's not really the case, though - the original album is currently a redirect. So, this should probably redirect as well. No objection to deletion if this is deemed too obscure a title. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 11 May 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) 00:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for the 10 or so people who search for it a day. Delete if that's not enough to warrant a redirect. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not seeing any non-trivial coverage, I agree that a redirect would be best here. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:00, 24 May 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) 00:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Priest's Graveyard

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale was No evidence for notablity, unencyclopedic as per WP:PLOT

Book does not appear to meet the criteria for notability listed in WP:GNG or in WP:BK Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The book is a NY Times bestseller. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While not a criterion of WP:BK, I assume a NY Times Best Seller should have been reviewed somewhere, so should meet WP:GNG Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:52, 11 May 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, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article consisting entirely of a plot outline. Unless notability can be adequately demonstrated with reliable third-party sources, it should be deleted. --DAJF (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book has been reviewed in Booklist, one of the leading literary publications. And any New York Times bestseller is notable by definition. Qworty (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number 9 on the NY Times best-seller list, and tons of reviews to choose from. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 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 merge target is proposed and the only keep opinion acknowledges the lack of reliable secondary sources, which per WP:V#Notability requires deletion. Sandstein 05:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pen Fight

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

No reliable secondary sources, non-notable. Was prodded as such, prod removed by anon. There seems to be a flash game of the same name, but that is non-notable too, and would probably qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A7. Huon (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's a great pity that such things are nominated for deletion, as this is an obviously encyclopedic topic and the only problem with it is that quite likely no reliable source has covered it yet. That's a general problem with games that are not commercially produced – it takes decades until they make it into anthologies. And with children's games it's even worse. Wikipedia articles on such "non-notable" topics which people have first-hand experience with can get quite good and authoritative, and this one seems headed that way. Marbles, at least, have become collectors' items and so there is a specialist literature that seems to cover rules at least cursorily. But it takes such accidents for games that are important to a huge percentage of the global population to become "notable" in our technical sense.
This game appears to be a variant of a marbles game, played with pens instead of marbles. Unfortunately I wouldn't know where to look for a reliable source on the marbles game, or else merging into marble (toy) might be feasible. Hans Adler 05:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't support the keeping of this as a stand alone article. There probably should be a wikipage called something along the lines of "school table games" then games like this could be added with a small paragraph. I have even played this game as something we just made-up one day when I was in school. The problem is that it just doesn't work very well as a game and lacks originality unlike subbuteo battle chess. There is one paper that briefly mentions it on scholar from 2009 [24]. The closest game that I could find on wikipedia would be Penny football rather than marbles.Tetron76 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 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, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge if a decent target can be found. Otherwise, though I largely agree with Hans, I think WP:N would call for deletion here. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 21 May 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) 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Review of Science Fiction

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

This internet publication doesn't seem to fulfill WP:WEB. Hasn't won any awards and does not seem notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realize I may lose this because I'm not sure how to prove the notability of this site. An online science fiction magazine doesn't necessarily win awards, and it's notice is mostly on the web, but as the field's a niche interest, I'm not sure if the sources are notable. If I had the time (more in the sense of time in my busy life) to dig a little deeper and build out the article, ah but if wishes were fishes we'd all have a feast. But for my two cents, I'd say keep. I think evidence of notability could be found given sufficient time and effort. Jztinfinity (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having said all that about being to busy to try to improve things, I tried to improve things. I added a bunch of links, including citing the site winning the Locus Awards for 3 years. Jztinfinity (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 May 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, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching led to blogs only (most of them talk about the closure of the IROSF) and I don't know of any usual sources for a website review. I think the blogs are worth taking a look though, particularly these two [25] [26] and a brief description at this university article [27]. Other blogs [28] [29] [30]. From the books search most are about authors who have in turn been published at the IROSF, but these three [31] [32] [33] might yield something (for what is available to read). I'm leaning towards keep (albeit weak), but I really would prefer to read the opinion of more experienced editors - frankieMR (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I am getting multiple book ghits for "Internet Review of Science Fiction", which indicates at least some degree of notability. It is mentioned as one of the best general-interest sites[34] and numerous published authors list this site among their credits. The topic seems worthwhile rescuing, so I tagged it.—RJH (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per comments above, especially the Locus Awards. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on sources found above. Many notable sites mention it, such as io9 [35] which states that it "helped set the gold standard for discussion of SF online". Various book results speak of it favorably as well. And it has won notable awards. If it wasn't notable, others wouldn't say such nice things about it, and cover its closing. Dream Focus 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 06:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me that the Locus Awards for this SF magazine are sufficient to establish notability, along with the many SF authors making contributions, but I did not remove the notability tag while the AfD is pending. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the Locus Awards are important awards, this website was always at the bottom of those lists (which sometimes did not even reach 25, suggesting a lack of any believable candidates) and never was even among the first 10. The sources provided in the article are absolutely insufficient, consisting of the Locus listings, an editorial, a verbatim-rendered press release in Locus, an in-passing mention in Asimov's, and a link to an anthology by Gardner Dozois that (as far as I can see) does not even mention the IRSF. Only the tor.com piece is a little bit more substantive, but three rathjer short paragraphs does not really establish notability either. --Crusio (talk) 14:12, 18 May 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. Neither keep nor delete arguments seem to be strong. Relisting didn't attract much more input either, so the article is left defaulted to keep. --Der yck C. 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee (webserver)

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

tagged with notability concerns for 1 month. Deprodded without improvement 3 weeks ago with suggestion that AFD is a better course. Unremarkable open source web server. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Provided references are largely primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Delete, weakly. Note that a previous version of this article was discussed a month ago, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee (Webserver). Since that nomination, the article has been moved, which is apparently why the old AfD was not picked up. That discussion was quite inconclusive. I nominated it; I withdrew the nomination.

I'm still of the opinion that there's no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. It was, however, listed in lists of also-ran web servers in several books. The project is fairly old. And it's free software, and several editors prefer to give free software a pass on strict sourcing requirements.

And since this has recently been discussed fairly extensively without consensus, I surely wouldn't mind if the nominator withdrew this nomination either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think I'll leave it as is. The previous AFD was a mess and got wrapped up with some unrelated issues in similar articles as well as some edit waring from an editor that was ultimately blocked. Hopefully this discussion can remain on course a bit better.--RadioFan (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not an unpopular product. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment popularity is not generally a criteria for notability. Can you expand on how you see this as notable, preferably with some examples of coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 18:58, 10 May 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) 00:40, 17 May 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) 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Sunday Brunch

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

Non-notable podcast; only potential RS is in Instinct Magazine, which per the article is a partner of the podcast and, thus, self-published. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Sunday brunch is gay, I don't want to be straight --MoonLichen (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 11 May 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) 00:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass the General Notability Guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 18 May 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) 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time contrast chart

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

Subject is yet-to-be published original research. Per WP:NOR, "If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery." I have encouraged the editor to submit to Wikiversity or Google Knol. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 11 May 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) 00:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not really WP:OR because it's a summary of a technical report published elsewhere, but it doesn't seem to have independent coverage at this point, and it's too new to judge it by citations. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'speedy deleted as copyright infringement. - filelake shoe 01:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electrofex

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

No refereneces and no sign of notability, advert. User:MikeBeckett Please do say 'Hi!' 00:17, 17 May 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) 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hughes IV

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

The subject has been mentioned in a few news, all local, but none of this coverage appears to be biographical in nature. He failed to win his party's nomination to a minor local office and served as an appointed member of an state board (whose other members all lack articles, or, indeed, mentions anywhere on Wikipedia). I don't believe he is yet notable. Dominic·t 03:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Dominic·t 03:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because he fails WP:POLITICIAN as he has never been elected to a high office. However, the argument that he shouldn't have an article because other members of the state board he was a member of don't have articles is a weak argument. If the post itself is notable, he deserves an article as do the other members. The fact, in this case, is that the post is not notable enough, per WP:POLITICIAN, so none of the members of that board are notable simply because of their membership on that board. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that whether other board members have articles doesn't really have any bearing on whether they should or not. I was trying to express that holding the office does not itself suggest notability, but I did so clumsily. Dominic·t 05:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:11, 17 May 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28sports%29#Individual_seasons
^ http://www.usarugby.org/goto/Collegiate_Clubs#cc%3D[Application]\\Structure\\Content\\Brand%20Resource%20Center\\Content\\Home\\21D9415F-129C-3D1E-45B7-71078B463B81\\23181D59-12E3-9D39-067D-2EDE62A20634{{Tab%3AView}}

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28sports%29#Individual_seasons

[2] ttp://www.usarugby.org/goto/Collegiate_Clubs#cc%3D[Application]\\Structure\\Content\\Brand%20Resource%20Center\\Content\\Home\\21D9415F-129C-3D1E-45B7-71078B463B81\\23181D59-12E3-9D39-067D-2EDE62A20634{{Tab%3AView}}

[1]

[2]