Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 18

< 17 May	19 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 speedy keep. Mkativerata (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R. B. Bennett

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

Non notable figure from the 1930s. Does not meet notability guidelines. Aiyoriaoshi (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- Verified article's existing claim as 11th Prime Minister of Canada, Head of state, covered within first clause of WP:POLITICIAN, meets WP:N. Dru of Id (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's only contributions to Wikipedia involve this spurious deletion attempt. This seems quite trollish. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - clearly disruptive nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 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) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of off-field incidents involving rugby league players

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

This list is an almost entirely negative list of incidents, and therefore falls foul of WP:NOT - "Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Because it is entirely concerned with off-field incidents, it is only tangentially relevant to the game of rugby. St Anselm (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely negative - plus many are "alleged" or "he was later found not guilty". So a large portion is a list of rumours and allegations that the courts found didn't actually happen. These should at the very least all be reworded to focus on the facts of each case, not the rumors and stories. Mattlore (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or split into separate scandals (as mentioned on the talk page) as per NFL and other sports wikiprojects.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. I favour the way content like this is organised for US sports. LunarLander // talk // 19:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "off-field behaviour of rugby league players" or similar. I have expanded the lead, adding relevant, contextualised references. It is now an "article" rather than just a list, although there is room for more prose. I believe there is a place for this article in Wikipedia as it describes a problematic societal situation of the last decade. WWGB (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. -Sticks66 13:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and notable incidents can still go in player biographies if referenced. GW (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any scandal that can be well sourced on its own can have its own article, but the clear intent of this list is simply to smear NRL and NRL players. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:44, 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) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rose

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

This article had a proposed deletion that I believe was removed ~~in bad faith by an anonymous user~~. Like was stated on the original proposal, the subject of this article is too obscure and does not have enough notability to have a Wikipedia page. A small amount of exposure on YouTube and minor local media coverage is not enough for a subject to have a page on Wikipedia. In addition, the article is horribly referenced. My views are also shared by editors who have posted on the article's talk page. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I removed the Prod because there are sources on the article and felt that an AFD would be better if someone thought it should be deleted. Also I am not an anonymous editor. At this point I have no recommendation GB fan (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for stating that you were anonymous and your removal was done in bad faith. I misread the page's history and thought that the prod was removed in a different edit that was made anonymously and had no summary listed. I submitted it to AFD because I didn't think the subject had enough notability and I still believe it needs a lot more citation, as I have stated above.Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't currently meet the notability guidelines. As already noted, the level of citation is pitiful which I suspect is the result of there simply being a lack of sources due to low notability.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yet another passing youtube peak of interest that will die out shortly. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This subject has had significant local media coverage (not minor as the nom says).[1]; [2]; [3]. Also has been some foreign coverage, [4]. A possible solution is to redirect and include at List of YouTube personalities.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I feel it important to keep small pages like this, as it peaks interest about small things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.59.141 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What would differentiate between major and minor media coverage? Most people that have Wikipedia pages have more than three or four local media articles written about them, let alone some nationwide coverage. Also, what does nom mean? Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the nom (nominator) GB fan (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What differentiates major and minor is subjective at the margins, but if there are articles specifically showcasing a person, that's more than "minor" to me. Passing references to a person are minor. I'm not advocating for this article to be kept though, I realize her fame is mostly piggybacked off of Rebecca Black.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add that fame, although linked to notability is not the same thing. I think the key question here is whether this is just a spike of news coverage of the latest odd internet thing of interest, or is it of actual lasting note. That is something that is not easily done now, as only time can tell for sure whether this is something that will live on in coverage. As editors, we need to examine the what the sources are, how much coverage there is, where this coverage occurs and the nature of the coverage. For me, it falls into the category of just another news item about the latest internet thing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for stating that the coverage was minor. I had originally claimed that because, although there were articles that were focused around her, they were few in number. I also feel that it is good to keep articles that have short sensational coverage if the subject is notable (which there are a lot of examples), but the subject of this article falls far short of any notability. Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the account about her? She's sorta famous. All famous people should be one here. I mean, you have Rebecca Black on here. Why not Jenna Rose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.81.48 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this to AFD because I believe it is cited poorly she is not notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Rebecca Black has received far more press coverage and her article is cited a lot better than this one. Even though you may consider her famous, Wikipedia has a guideline which I do not believe qualifies her to have her own page. Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Think this can wait till the subject title gets more notability - If she ever does. 137.132.250.10 (talk) 10:47, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Waechter

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

Contested prod. Fails Wikipedia:BASEBALL/N. Baseball Watcher 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 23:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as fraud [5]. Apparently this is someones "Road to the Show" character. -Spanneraol (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax/fraud per Spanneraol's link - article discusses the subject being selected in the 2011 MLB draft, which doesn't occur until next month. -Dewelar (talk) 03:44, 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 redirect to Playdom, thereby preserving the content for rework in case the game becomes more notable in the future. Der yck C. 21:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bola (video game)

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

Does not meet the general notability guideline. The sources are: facebook, a forum, a web traffic page, the game publisher, a self-published blog, and a user generated walkthrough. You need reliable sources (not self published, not forums or communities) that are independent of the subject (not the developer) to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I was thinking of redirecting this to Playdom, but I found a review at Gamezebo. Inside Social Games is worth further examination; Here is their about page. I think it may have the heft to qualify as a reliable source. Marasmusine (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not enough significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Gamezebo is currently the only accepted source in the article (even that reference is a walkthrough), and I couldn't find a review or good overview from a stronger source. Prime Blue (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've opened a discussion about the use of Inside Social Games at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Inside Network Marasmusine (talk) 11:38, 18 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 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like Prime Blue, I couldn't find good sources that talked about this game. I'll weigh in on the ISG discussion, but right now I'm leaning towards it not being a reliable source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Usb10 ^{plug me in} 00:29, 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. Der yck C. 21:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Wookie

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

sources provided are hard to verify, google search doesn't bring up much in regards to notability. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 21:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself indicates the band never went anywhere. The SPIN article simply names it as one of the worst bands with very little narrative text, and what little text there is does not constitute coverage about the band, but is just the article writer being sarcastic, or thinking he is witty. There is no other coverage about this band. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability online, except for the one Spin article. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Whpq. Not even the article naming them as the 2nd worst band cares to say anything about them - frankieMR (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sufficient indicia of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:59, 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 per G7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh87 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stylish Index

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because its notability has not yet established. Also, this has no sources, making it an orphan. Although she is a popular Hong Kong singer, notability of other Kelly Chen's albums is absent. Gh87 (talk) 21:25, 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 by Slakr ‎(Speedy deleted per (CSD G11), was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something.) Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fibrebond Corporation

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

I do not see why this company is Notable for inclusion. It's nicely written, but I do not think it meets WP:GNG. Phearson (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure corporate spam. Google News throws up next to nothing on this company. Perchloric (talk) 02:02, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) maucho eagle _(c) 00:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Maccabeats

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Its "notability" is based principally on a single song that became popular on YouTube. Does not meet notability for WP:EVENT, either. Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group's popularity and notability has continued past the release of Candlelight. In fact, a quick Google News search shows they recently played at The White House [6], their music video director received a profile in The Jewish Week [7], and they are regularly playing at Jewish venues across the northeast. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was unaware of the White House performance when I nominated it for deletion (it wasn't yet in the article and it happened only the day before). It makes the nomination a closer call, although I still believe that at this point they are more of a phenomenon than anything else. Whether later they more clearly establish notability remains to be seen.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per this new information, let's get this over with quickly -- WP:SNOW. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Try harder not to be condescending and dismissive. It may take some work, but I'm sure you can do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to be more of a keeper than a deleter, and I'd give this one the benefit of the doubt.--Frankie Rae (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Their notability is based principally on a single song that became popular on YouTube. This appearance was then covered in cited WP:RS, just as we ask. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just because a single event is covered doesn't necessarily make it notable. See WP:INDEPTH and surrounding (above and below) guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the level of RS coverage, it meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 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. Der yck C. 20:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Media LLC

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

Lots of PR releases, no substantial reliable sources. Non-notable. TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Google and Google News come up only with incidental mentions. Perchloric (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a privately owned and operated Digital media and New media communications firm. You get a hint of how painfully inadequate descriptions written in this style are, when the article goes on to suggest that what they're really trying to do is collect data about Facebook users' politics by offering some kind of Facebook game. Unambiguous advertisement for a non-notable business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I love the smell of astroturf in an article. Wait a minute, no I don't. Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 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 per G7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh87 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Love (Kelly Chen album)

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

Although she is a popular Hong Kong singer, the notability of Kelly Chen's albums has yet to be established. Also, there are no sources, and it is an orphan article. This article has not improved for years. Also, I created this article to spin it off from the article of Kelly Chen. Gh87 (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been made as a multiple delete request. I'll just respond here.

Since you created the article and are the sole author of substance, I'll just go ahead and delete. Same for several other articles you created (Love (Kelly Chen album), Grace & Charm, Red (compilation), Stylish Index). Those you did not create but nominated for deletion I'll leave up for discussion. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Army Rifle Company Organization 1943-45

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

Not encyclopedic material, or at the very least should be merged somewhere into World War II or something. Diego Grez (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is encyclopedic information. Obviously sources need to be provided but that should not be difficult. There is a need to integrate it better into other relevant material, on US army organisation or the role of the rifle company, whether and in what way the 1943-5 rifle company differed from that before and after etc. But those are not reasons for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is just a recitation of statistics with no sourcing whatsoever. If there is a desire to work on a US Army Rifle organisation article, this would not be the basis for such and article, so there is no need to keep this material. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sort of. Some of this, if referenced, might make sense in an article about the overall organizational structure for Army Rifle Companies. But just a raw list, with no context, doesn't pass muster from a notability standpoint. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: editors should also look at US Army Infantry Battalion Organization 1943-45, which I seconded a prod on before the tag was replaced with a merger tag. I normally dislike mass nominations, I think these two are similar enough to warrant adding this to the nom. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of the United States Army any data that is useful, then delete (not likely to be useful as a redirect). It fails to have notability as an article, and is just a directory of statistics on its own. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is there to merege? The material is completely outsourced stats. If you found the reference, then the material could be added directly to History of the United States Army without this article. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect anywhere appropriate. Remains unverified. --Pink Bull 14:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate, contextless and unsourced information. Sandstein 05:49, 27 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 verifiability and notability concerns addressed below. Der yck C. 20:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Surak

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

Can't find anything for this subject. Is it the same one discussed here? If so, that doesn't change much, since there don't seem to multiple secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing in GNews. Not notable. Perchloric (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, the problem with musicians like this, is that even if they were influential in their scene, there's not a great deal of material we'd consider reliable on them. With that said, WP:V concerns do apply here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:50, 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 lack of notability. Der yck C. 20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Intense Wrestling

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 19:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable local promotion, fails WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another fly-by-night wrestling promotion. No notability that I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 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 as a hoax created by a troubled user (blocked). Materialscientist (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Richards Bunch Movie

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

Apparently contested PROD. Original reasoning: No references for this supposed Disney movie can be found... likely hoax. This reasoning still stands. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 hoax Common sense here... this is the Disney corporation we're talking about... if references don't pop up on a simple google search it's because it doesn't exist. Disney aren't amateurs when it comes to promotion of their property. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 20:21, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Dayneko

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro team. PROD was contested on the grounds that FC Dnepr Mahilyow is in the Belorusian Premier League. However, there is no indication that Mr. Dayneko ever actually played for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Couldn't find anything to show that this football player meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. Google News Archives didn't have any hits for him at all. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the usual reasons given above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:11, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pride music college

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No Google hits related to the organization described in the article. Yk³ talk · contrib 17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources confirming notability and verifiability. I have looked up this college on the British Accreditation Council list and the UK Border Agency list of colleges able to sponsor students for visa purposes. Both drew a blank. That is not in itself conclusive but it does mean that we need a reliable source for all the statements made in the article. I found none. --AJHingston (talk) 23:42, 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 redirect to List of American film actresses and protect, since this is the 3rd attempt to create an article which is a duplicate of another. Given that all instances of creating the article was in the last two weeks, a three-month protection should be appropriate. Any administrator may change the protection settings without my consent if they see fit, however I'd appreciate if I'm notified of the changes. Der yck C. 20:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Female American Movie Actors

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

This article was already speedy deleted and recreated twice, but it was suggested that it doesn't scrictly qualify for a Speedy, so I brought it here. This article seems to be a completely arbitrary list of random actresses. We already have an article specifically listing American Actresses here, so this article already seems rather redundant. In addition, this article's section on "Most Famous Movie" falls into either/both WP:OR and WP:POV. The page's author has created numerous other pages with the same format on other subjects, if it is decided here that this article should be deleted, those need to be looked at as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once and for all. Duplicate article, although this one is far less complete. And per nom, the 'most famous movie' column constitutes WP:OR and unsolicited WP:POV. - Yk³ talk · contrib 18:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no logical reason to create an article that duplicates an entire category. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of American film actresses per Rorschacma.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of American film actresses, and if necessary protect the redirect to prevent recreation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The creator of this List is on a roll of creating Lists to recreate categories. I redirected a couple to the relevant categories, now he/she's started creating List articles which are just REDIRs to categories. Bazj (talk) 19:05, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Major League Baseball free agents

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

We are not a transaction site. We don't need to have whole pages dedicated to who is a free agent each offseason, as team season pages and the player pages carry all the necessary information. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Interesting, but also overkill. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't necessarily have an issue with deleting these particular free agent lists. However, I don't think that lists of free agents by year are necessarily non-notable. In particular, the free agent lists associated with the collusion case a few years back would be legitimate to keep. Similarly, lists of free agents by year of the fist few post-Messersmith classes, littered with all-stars and future hall of famers and million dollar contracts (not per year but in total) that had writers despairing on how free agency ruined the game. But by now, free agency is pretty routine, and so unless there is some special reason to keep (e.g., the collusion case), deletion is supportable. Rlendog (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was never listed on an AFD page. I've done so now, putting it on the 18th. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh. WP:Twinkle fail. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a baseball almanac. Keeping a list of free agents every season is, like Wizardman said, an overkill.—Chris!_c/t 20:28, 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 keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of events at Yankee Stadium (1923)

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of events, as it includes some but not necessarily all events to take place at the old Yankee Stadium. In addition, it gives no argument as to what makes it notable to consider events in such a way. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve - Yankee Stadium (the 1923 version, not the 2009 version) is the most storied ballpark there ever was. I think this was originally in the main Yankee Stadium article and was spun off because it was getting too large. Maybe some criteria could be applied as to what constitutes a notable event. A number of books have been written about the Stadium, and certain things keep turning up: Ruth hitting the first homer; the Yankees inaugurating the Stadium with their first World Series championship; Gehrig and Ruth saying farewell; the Louis-Schmeling fight; Ruth's body lying in state; the sudden-death-overtime NFL championship game; Mickey Mantle's towering home runs; the mass held by Pope Paul VI; etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve: This is the first time I've seen this list in this form, and it can obviously become a sort of magnet or fly-trap for all kinds of miscellaneous events that seem far more important to whoever posts each one than they would for others. There's also a lot that can be pruned because it's not particularly specific to the Stadium, e.g. miscellaneous World Series (as opposed to, say, the first and last ones played at the Stadium or the first and last Yankees-Dodgers series). But I think Bugs is right: there are enough notable events that are of interest even to non-sports fans (for example, the two Joe Louis-Max Schmeling fights) that, if they can't be comfortably squeezed into the already-lengthy Yankee Stadium (1923), should be spun off into this one. Alternatively, perhaps, we could change the list title slightly and start adding any particularly notable events at the new Yankee Stadium. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) ¶ P.S. I've added my own thoughts about possible improvements to the article at the hitherto-untouched Talk:List of events at Yankee Stadium (1923) —— Shakescene (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't believe I'm saying this about the Death Star, but this seems to be cromulent list of notable events (which requires massive improvement in hte referencing). Normally, I would say to merge this with the article on the Stadium, but this list is clearly too long to do that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I can't believe I nominated an article about my childhood synagogue. It struck me as a list of indiscriminate events, but opinion seems to be to keep (so far). – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning toward a merge, but there's too much history so I believe this article should stay. –BuickCentury Driver 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was never listed on an AFD page. I've done so now, putting it on the 18th. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this doesn't strike me as an indiscriminate list such as those you see in List of references to John Q. Public in popular culture type articles; this is a well presented chronological list of genuinely important events in one of the most famous stadiums of all time, and includes events both from the field of baseball and from outside said field. I'm not saying we should have these articles on every major sports stadium, but to me, this is clearly a good article topic. Kansan (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Finite list with logical parameters. Provides a useful navigational function. Suitable sub-page for main coverage of the stadium. A nicely done list with copious footnoting. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appropriate spinout of content from its parent article. Well-documented, well-referenced chronological overview. The exact thresholds for events to be included in the list is an editorial matter, not a deletion concern. I obviously wouldn't support one of these articles for every sports stadium and events venue (or even for many of them), but very few such places have the historical weight and breadth of events as Yankee Stadium. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is the very nature of all stadium articles to include information about major events that have taken place there; this is as much an editorial matter as any other information we add to the encyclopedia. For a few long-lived, high-profile articles it is appropriate to make a subarticle for such information, because the number of events worth mentioning is so extensive that including it in the main article would constitute undue weight. There is no sign that the information in the article is indiscriminate in any way—quite the contrary it seems to have only selected content of lasting notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as routine overflow split from notable article. And add their 22-0 loss against Cleveland :-) Ma^t_chups 02:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was a real stinker. –BuickCentury Driver 19:16, 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Dove

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

Article where both speedy (A7) and prods were removed. Upshot is that this is a non-notable person who doesn't have any significant coverage outside of the local area, and so does not pass WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 17:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for deletion I don't think there is any reason to delete this. The subject is a real person who has influence on society, and who cares if you don't know him. Most the people on Wikipedia are people that most people have never heard of and had almost no effect on society. I just found one that said Org Jorgenson or something like that. Who is that? there is like one like there and it hasn't been deleted. Therefor it would be hipocritic of you to delete this page and not all others like it. --Adminium 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete Clearly fails WP:NotabilityTeapotgeorge^Talk 17:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A great many people lead worthy lives but do not become notable. There is nothing here to demonstrate notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor referencing for the article. Fails notability. CrossTempleJay talk 23:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Major recognition as Teacher of the year in a state with 125K teachers. Dru of Id (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers isn't a valid deletion argument. Where are the other Ohio teachers of the year? Certainly not here on Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) ) 02:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:N and WP:RS. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think that teacher of the year, as an award given to one person in a large state, could be significant enough to form the basis of an article, if for instance it led to in-depth profiles of him in multiple newspapers with a scope greater than his local town. However, I wasn't able to find such stories in this case and I don't think the award itself, without any depth of third-party coverage, is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps more importantly, there's no source for the award itself, nor his winning thereof. Lack of sources is a deal-breaker. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note Google finds a few news stories, including this official-looking one, so maybe it's not a totally lost cause. I guess it depends on the notability of the award itself. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being Teacher of the Year in a major US state fails WP:BLP1E. Abductive (reasoning) 12:52, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry by age

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

Several months ago an article that listed the ages and lifespans of Nobel laureates in literature was deleted. The Consensus was that the list was original research and an indiscriminate collection of information. However, similar pages also existed for the other Nobel Prizes. The reasons given apply to these lists as well, so the lists should be deleted. I am also nominating the following related pages besides the chemistry page, as they are all similar in content.

Dagko (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Chemistry and Physics together into 'List of Nobel laureates in Sciences by age. That way, the articles together may become more notable. Adam mugliston Talk 14:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplication. Put age/lifespan info on the lists of names if needed, not in separate articles. Tables can be sorted by most desktop browsers (Help:Sort). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Subtracting a date from another to work out how old someone was when something happened is not OR. ― A. di M._plé^dréachtaí 15:15, 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, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations specifically allows the computations that were performed to order these lists: "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Chester Markel (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the lists of laureates, making those lists sortable tables. Not OR Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought this would be an easy call for a merge, but there are so many irrelevant fields in the database that it's going to be somewhat difficult to do and a pretty big mess if it isn't done. Birthdate, date of award, age at time of award, death date, out... Instead we've got fields for "Number of Minutes between Publication of Dissertation and Return Home From Awards Ceremony" and such. The database needs to be pared back if there is to be a merge. Include instead stuff that matters like Country of Origin, University, and so forth.. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the cleanup of irrelevant details should be part of the process, but there is no reason for a separate table.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete and include a sortable table in the article of the list of nobel laureates with an "age" field. --Forich (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not original research, but clearly an indiscriminate collection of data (indiscriminate in the sense that what makes this different from "List of Nobel Laureates in Chemistry" is an aspect that has no influence on the prize, the person, ... Why age? Why not height, weight, number of siblings, etcetera?) Fram (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:IINFO, obviously. -Atmoz (talk) 15:48, 18 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, ArcAngel (talk) ) 17:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear that the connection between age and winning a science Nobel prize is notable - here are some reliable sources : [8], [9]. Therefore, I support keeping all apart from List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates by age, as the correlation between age and winning the Peace Prize hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. --Anthem of joy (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm lukewarm to the idea of "merging" by simply adding further information to the various lists, but that should only be limited to DOB & DOD--the main lists risk being cluttered and the calculations presented in these are of completely trivial interest. With respect to Anthem of joy's links, the sources discuss the age at which Nobel-worthy research was accomplished, not when the awards were distributed...this collection of lists details only award dates in contrast to DOB/DOD. — Scientizzle 20:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and make the various Nobel laureates lists sortable by age. There is no need for a separate list by age when an existing list can serve the same function. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate. I can see that the editor believes that the information is of interest, but I am unclear as to the reasons. There is a view that the age of Nobel prizewinners has increased, and the table would bear that out. And some prizewinners are living to a good age. There are several possible explanations for each and neither piece of information is informative is itself. The piece of information that is of most obvious interest is the age at which they were when they did the work that got them the prize, That is absent and the most difficult to include without OR and judgement. --AJHingston (talk) 23:32, 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) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nerimon

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

Claims to be a famous blogger and musician. No indication of importance of Blogging. The claim to fame as a musician are two albums and two EP's on an independent label. No independent reliable sources that give good coverage. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Using only the links in this AFD, I found BBC article(includes a photo of him), Wired, plus lots of other stuff, including stuff in languages I don't speak. The article certainly needs work, but news alone makes him pass WP:GNG. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Brilliant Dennis, thanks, I hadn't properly looked at that yet after I rejected CSD (shame on me). Let's let it run it's course though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about this person was actually created waaay back in April of last year, under his legal name (Alex Day). It remained on Wikipedia for about six months, before being deleted in October as a result of an AfD discussion (which can still be viewed here). The general consensus from the discussion was that, although his username "Nerimon" has been mentioned briefly in a handful of sources, they are almost exclusively trivial and few of them even mention him by name. I don't feel that this current article establishes notability any better than the last one, and, looking down on the list of results from Google News, I'm not sure that there is really enough there to pass WP:GNG. Although Day has released a couple of albums and EPs, they were all on a small, independent label that doesn't seem to be notability of itself, so I don't believe that he passes WP:MUSICBIO either. A Thousand Doors (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mmm.. cant say that I'm 100% sure that notability has been asserted in this instance. Regarding the list of Google News results, it would seem that, once you remove all the dead links and the questionable results in other languages, all that you're left with is a fleeting mention on a BBC news website, and an article on Wired.com that seems to be more about the genre that he's created rather than him. Doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia:WEB either, if that's applicable here... 109.204.113.111 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I previously opined that he was notable in the Alex Day AfD. I deal with a lot of youtuber/internet articles and I know we are vigilant to guard against the many non-notable subjects whose fans try to get onto wikipedia, but this one is legitimate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly legitimate, but the question is whether there exists enough extensive coverage on reliable sources. The BBC article only talks about him in passing, and (while the wired article is more comprehensive) it doesn't even go as far as to mention Day's name. I still feel that he is not (yet) notable. Also, without material from reliable sources, how can we verify anything in the article? Just my thoughts... A Thousand Doors (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex is awesome and shud deffo have a wikipedia. he has done loads of stuff that makes him important. he has over 200,000 subscrbers to his channel, he was in fiveawesomeguys, he invited trock, he is in chamelon circuit, he won upstaged, he made rthe top 40 with 'ive got nothing', he released albums on dftba, need i go on???? dftba! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.211.18 (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC) — 92.21.211.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, while all those things are true, I don't think any of them necessarily assert Day's notability. His subscriber count isn't really relevant, per WP:BIGNUMBER. Involvement in things like Fiveawesomeguys, Trock, Chameleon Circuit and DFTBA Records also isn't relevant, as they themselves are not (yet) notable. If one of them does become notable, then it might be appropriate to include Alex. His role in Upstaged was as one of a larger ensemble; he was a contestant on the show, rather than a "star", and (from what I recall) he didn't even take part in the semi-final or final. Finally, he didn't actually feature on the Chartjackers single – he was more of a promoter, and didn't perform on the track, produce it, star in the video nor feature in the artwork. If the single had been credited to "Chartjackers feat. Nerimon" or something, then I might be inclined to support than argument, but it wasn't. A Thousand Doors (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the above reasoning. 92.21.204.220 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As A Thousand Doors has indicated, the articles do not discuss Nerimon in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. Even if they did, he still seems not notable enough to warrant his own article; GNG does not guarantee an article. If he becomes more notable and covered in reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the general notability guideline actually is a measure of what is deemed notable. Though subjects that fail the guideline may still be included or excluded on other grounds, notability on wikipedia is pretty much defined as passing the GNG. To me a deletion rationale of 'it passes the general notability guideline, but is not notable' makes no sense. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree with you, it seems to me that Crisco's point is that Day does not yet satisfy GNG anyway, regardless of whether or not doing so would imply his notability. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was poorly paraphrasing this:
"... significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."
Sorry for any misunderstandings. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn musician. Does not meet any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. 81.168.70.117 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the notability stems more from his status as blogger than his musical carreer. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough then, but i dont see how his notability as a blogger is established either. the whole page reads more like an advertisement for him than an encyclopedic article anyway. 81.168.70.117 (talk) 14:52, 20 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, ArcAngel (talk) ) 17:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was actually always a fan of the article that we had on Alex Day last year (I edited it quite a bit), although I can understand why it was deleted. I definitely don't believe that this current article is necessarily an improvement or asserts Day's notability any clearer, so I feel that it should also be deleted. $V o$ BEDD 18:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In the last AfD, when I was more inexperienced and compassionate, I struggled to come to a conclusion on this subject's notability. I finally decided on delete. Since then, nothing has changed to improve Day's notability (in fact his star seems to be fading). I have been hosting the original article here in the hope that I might be able to keep it current in case he does something which confers notability. I haven't been able to do this although it's worth a look. The article was of good quality but the bold nominator was correct in saying that there were no real signs of the subject passing our notability guidelines. This is still the case. —Half Price 22:00, 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) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Priming

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

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

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

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

Topic appears to lack notability Health Researcher (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (by nom). This is a promotional article for a topic (some new thinking about genetic psychology) that I regard as worthy and worthwhile. But I do not see signs that it has yet become notable. Since Wikipedia is not in the business of forecasting notability (WP:NOTCRYSTAL), and is not in the business of promoting worthwhile but not-yet-notable ideas, I believe the article should be deleted. If at some point the topic does acquire the needed notability (WP:NOTE), the article can be generated at that time. At present, based on the author's own words and on a Google search HERE there seem to be a few mentions in blogs that themselves don't seem obviously notable, where the author was given a venue to present his ideas, and a few online comments were offered. There is nothing in Google Scholar (HERE). If there is sufficient notability, then that must be made completely clear in the article itself by citations to the appropriate blogs. It is better that the author understand how Wikipedia works, and create a page when the topic has become notable, than to prolong the agony or propogate misunderstanding of Wikipedia. -- Health Researcher (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that blogs could be cited in Wikipedia articles. If they can, this can easily be done.John jacob lyons (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general blogs should not be cited except in exceptional circumstances. They are regarded as self-published sources with all the limitations that the designation implies. There are some exceptions for large blogs widely seen as reliable sources, but those are very few and far between. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does not the Biology of Religion blog of the Nature Publishing Group count as a reliable source? Also, please bear in mind that this article was not really 'self-published' since it was invited by the editor.John jacob lyons (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to suggest that the article at http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2011-03-24/the-genetic-priming-of-religiosity-guest-post-by-john-jacob-lyons?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d8bc0721c26ed03%2C0 does establish that Genetic Priming is notable. It is a well-known scientific blog that is recommended by The Nature Publishing Group which is one of the most respected such groups in the scientific world. Furthermore I would add that I was invited to write this piece by the Editor of the blog. The discussion that followed was uniformly positive. John jacob lyons (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single scientific study published in a peer-reviewed journal does not make a scientific topic notable. Can one or two mentions in a blog do what a peer-reviewed journal cannot do? I remain skeptical that notability exists at the present time, but have not scrutinized all policy pages. What do others say? -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that "recommended by The Nature Publishing Group" (the author's claim), whatever precisely that means -- (perhaps a user-submitted list of potentially interesting science blogs), does not mean it is by that publishing group. The Nature Publishing Group seems to have its own collection of blogs at http://blogs.nature.com, where it appears that once or twice the genetic priming topic may have been mentioned briefly, in passing. Health Researcher (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a student of Psychology of Religion, I found this article made a useful contribution to the question of why people are religous and act in religious ways. It has created considerable interest in the academic community of which I am aware. Alice Herron MA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.143.226 (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 87.112.143.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Genetic priming theory has created considerable interest/ discussion among my friends and colleagues in the field of Evolutionary Psychology and in Psychology of Religion in particular. The article is interesting, well-written and potentially important in Evolutionary Theory. It should definitely be retained in Wikipedia. A. Violetta Barzankian-Kaydan, BSc (Psych) Hons, MSc Psych, MA Psych of Religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.222.137 (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 90.204.222.137 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How Wikipedia Works: Editors new to Wikipedia - thank you for your interest in participating in Wikipedia - should understand that "notability" is regulated by guidelines listed at WP:NOTE. Therefore creating a positive verbal buzz does not constitute notability. Note also that the notability guideline says "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity.... Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally," and that "Multiple sources are generally expected". Please also be aware that this discussion is not a vote, and, for future reference, please also read WP:MEAT with regard to soliciting comments from outside editors. -- Health Researcher (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Failes to pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: little evidence of widespread usage in this context and too narrow a sourcing basis to demonstrate notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N and also has WP:COI issues. The phrase "genetic priming" is used in the literature, but with a different meaning to that of John Jacob Lyons. -- 202.124.74.110 (talk) 01:10, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

URA!

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

I have struggle to find reliable sources which cover this subject in any great detail, thereby i don't believe it is notable enough for inclusion on WP and should be deleted. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 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, Baseball Watcher 00:19, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like an interesting place, but not notable as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unable to find non-trivial coverage in reliable sources--but this isn't a total loss, I might swing by there next time I'm in the city. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:48, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Vajushi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro leauge. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its an Albanian superliga player from one of the main clubs from Albania, and has also caps for Young Albania --Vinie007 15:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Vinie007 (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no sourcing that the Albanian Superliga is fully pro, his appearances in that league do not grant notability under WP:NSPORT, and his youth caps are not relevant to notability either as they are explicitly excluded under NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Vinie. He is one the most talented players in the Albanian Superliga. He is being followed by some strong European teams (as the article says) and is obviously a professional. It is likely that he will move to a fully professional league soon and it is pointless to delete this article and then recreate it after he transfers.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY as the Albanian league isn't fully-professional, and also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE and WP:NTEMP. All the transfer speculation fails WP:SPECULATION/CRYSTAL. Youth caps do not confer notability. --Jimbo^[online] 23:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think - I can see the points made for keep, but he lacks, as far as I can tell, any hope of making WP:GNG just now. The sources I can find him in all seem to be the usual database type of sources, with the odd article touching on him in a vague form, but generally just a mention or speculation that he may sign for Ajax or a German club. Given that and WP:CRYSTAL we can't keep this, so it's delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It actually satisfies NFOOTY. Please check FPL

Keep: He is one of the 2-3 best young players of Albania, and he satisfies NFOOTY. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. If he is so good then it's only a matter of time until he makes his national team debut, right? Argyle 4 Life^talk 07:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why do you say that he fails GNG? There are dozen on sources on him. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be so but that doesn't make him notable. I'd wager that Rhodri Giggs has more coverage than this guy. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because he has a famous brother, not because of his soccer skills (the league he plays in is 8th in the British pyramid of leagues). So he would qualify for a redirect to his own famous brother and his article would be deleted. Armando Vajushi has GNG because of his soccer skills, not because of a famous brother (in fact his other teammate, who play better than him, don't enjoy this notoriety). If we delete this, the article writer of Vajushi will have to start it from scratch once that Vajushi will play for Hajduk or some other team that participates in a "professional" league. And that will happen if the editor is not already fed up with wikipedia and its (sometimes) illogical and contradictory rules, which we all should strive to improve. There is a discussion ongoing currently on the matter (see here (permanent link)--Doktor Plumbi (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No-one will have to start the article again - it can simply be restored as it is at the moment if he ever makes the grade. Number 5 7 14:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for giving earlier the wrong reason: He satisfies NFOOTY so should be kept. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to WP:NFOOTBALL failure. The youth caps are irrelevant - it was established long ago that only Olympic or full international caps confer notability on players. Most of the keep votes seem to be along the lines of "he will be a great player". Well, let's wait and see - the article can be restored in an instant if he does become so. Number 57 09:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please check WP:FPL because Albania is on the list --Vinie007 06:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Request - I'm sorry, but you couldn't be a dear and link to a half decent translation of any of the refs you added to support your diffs at WP:FPL that the Albanian league is fully pro could you? It'd be really helpful as I'm finding that google trans doesn't do the best job on Albanian articles! Ta v much. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Answer request: The statute enters in p4 a definition of the league: “Liga” do të nënkuptojë kombinim ose grup klubesh brenda territorit të FSHF-së, e cila varet dhe është nën autoritetin e FSHF-së. Translation: The "League" will stay for a combination of clubs within the territory of FSHF, which is under the authority of FSHF. This link brings to the table that the league is existing and has been around for a while, the first paragraph asserts that the meeting of the league failed to realize its objectives because the presidents didn't reach any concrete decision. You can deduct that the league is ongoing from the second paragraph Mbledhja është ndërprerë disa herë, pasi debatet kanë qenë mjaft të zjarrta mes presidentëve dhe kreut të Ligës Profesionste, Koço Kokëdhima. Presidenti i Vllaznisë, Valter Fushaj, i pakënaqur për punën e deritanishme në krye të Ligës Profesioniste, kërkoi shkarkimin e kryetarit të Ligës, Koço Kokëdhima. Translation: The reunion was interrupted several times because debates between the presidents and the chief of the 'Professional League, Koco Kokedhima were very heated. President of Vllaznia, Valter Fushaj, unhappy with the work of the League asked for the resignations of the president, Koco Kokedhima. From the following paragraphs you can also deduct that the league has been around for a while. --Doktor Plumbi (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that this discussion is getting sidetracked into discussion of sources about the status of the Albanian league rather than of sources about the subject shows the bankruptcy of the WP:FOOTYN guideline. Editors are demanding that proof be provided of this league's "fully professional" status, when even England's Premier League is not fully professional (e.g. when Wayne Rooney made his debut he was a youth trainee on £80 per week, well below the prevailing minimum wage). Let's focus on the player rather than the league. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per WP:FPL, the Albanian Superliga seems to be a fully professional league and Vajushi seems to have played in the Albanian Superliga, so I don't understand why he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Unless the list in WP:FPL is incorrect, this seems appropriate to keep. Rlendog (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that Albanian Superliga was recently added to WP:FPL, so I suppose that is why there is controversy here. Although the translation above seems to support the league's professionalness. Rlendog (talk) 15:16, 26 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 per G12. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Azzopardi

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

Google him, doesn't show up that many good'n's. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 14:51, 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 per concerns about notability and lack of sourcing.

Tashannie

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

I was unable to find sufficient RS coverage reflecting notability. Epeefleche (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:notability on music. -- CrossTempleJay talk 23:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 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 keep. The general consensus in this discussion is that the event has adequate notability for inclusion even though it's a news event. Der yck C. 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Manhattan terrorism plot

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

WP:NOTNEWS, The article is about a recent alleged terrorism plot. this source says that the case is not being dealt with on a federal level because it was not considered strong enough to secure a conviction. In my opinion, this article should be userfied until such time as the GNG can be satisfied Quasihuman | Talk 14:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This alleged terrorism plot has at this point over 500 instances of news coverage in many languages from countries all over the world. WP:NOTNEWS is intended to avoid having encyclopedia articles about routine crimes, celebrity coverage, routine news announcement, and like things which are not of enduring importance. Terror plots from years past have in fact gained continuing coverage, and have been found to be encyclopedic, by surviving AFDs. Worried that this does not satisfy GNG? Note the 500+ instances of "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources." GNG is easily satisfied by many news events of far less importance than alleged and prosecuted plots to commit mass murder for terrorist purposes. We added NOTNEWS to avoid Wikipedia being a mirror of every water-cooler story or routine crime story, which this is not. This case has already been noted as the first instance of trying alleged terrorists under a New York state law rather than a federal law. Edison (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly the sort of "article" that WP:NOTNEWS describes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per Edison. This is clearly a notable topic which will continue to garner significant media coverage throughout the trial, similar to the 2009 Bronx terrorism plot. The plot also has longer-term ramifications for national security and homegrown terrorism. This afd seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT because there's not a snowball's chance in hell this article is going to be deleted. Please go for the speedy keep. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per plot spoiler. Broccolo (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, number of google news results is not a reliable metric for significant coverage, as it includes many sources that might be considered unreliable, and only indicates quantity, not quality of coverage. Plot Spoilers argument that this topic will continue to garner significant coverage is a bit of a WP:CRYSTAL argument. As for accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I have not expressed my opinion of the events in my nomination, so how does that apply? Quote from WP:IDONTLIKEIT: "while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted", I have never (to my memory) !voted on an AfD involving terrorism, I really don't see how that applies. The 2009 Bronx terrorism plot involves a plot in which the protagonists were convicted, this is only an alleged plot (it should actually be titled Alleged 2011 Manhattan terrorism plot), It only may have long term consequences if it turns out to be true, and the federal agencies decision not to prosecute indicates that it probably does not have national security implications. Quasihuman | Talk 22:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that an accusation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is essentially an accusation of attempted censorship of material "delete this because I don't like it" and is not something to be thrown around lightly & without evidence.Quasihuman | Talk 22:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the brusque suggestion. Still think this is clearly WP:SNOW and not WP:CRYSTAL, because it is the objective reality that this case will continue to receive notable media coverage, as other cases of this magnitude have in the past. This is not going to change. The Mayor of New York, the DA of the city, and NYPD police commissioner all commented on the issue, and this will continue to be a high-profile case. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Quasihuman | Talk 11:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep notable high profile criminal plot. as per WP:N/CA. 2 people have been arrested and charged. even if they are acquitted at a later point this would be a notable event documenting Islamophobia some allege is sweeping the USA.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the matter of potential national security implications, this source says that the federal authorities thought that the event did not have national security implications, and that it was being dealt with at a state level because of this. Quasihuman | Talk 23:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the evidence changed with the sting operation... Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and where in WP guidelines does it say that the case has to have "national security implications" in order to be considered notable enough for an article?--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but that was an argument used by Plot Spoiler as to why the article is notable, see above, it is only fair to bring that into question if it was raised by another editor. Plot Spoiler, can you substantiate that with a source? Did the feds change their minds with this new evidence? The sting operation apparently took place on 11 May, the article cited in my comment above is dated 14 May and does not mention this evidence. Quasihuman | Talk 12:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think as we already established this has no bearing on afd. Not worth looking back into. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't establish that, we established that there are no guidelines that say that the case has to have national security implications in order to be notable. If the incident did have national security implications, that might increase its notability, therefore it is important to establish whether that is true or not. Plot Spoiler rightly raised this as one reason for notability, I'm just trying to establish whether it is true or not. Quasihuman | Talk 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have established that and you yourself agreed that that is not a required standard. can we stick to discussing if this articles breaks accepted WP guidelines for having an article and stop discussing irrelevant things on AfD. whether this topic is more notable or less notable is immaterial as long as it is above the threshold required. any other article related issues need to be discussed on talk page not here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTLAW we rarely have cut and dried "rules" that apply to every situation. You asked me whether there are guidelines that say that the case has to have national security implications in order to be notable, and there are no such specific guidelines that I know of. We do have WP:EVENT, which says that events are likely to be notable "if they have a significant lasting effect", it is in this context that Plot Spoiler raised national security: "The plot also has longer-term ramifications for national security and homegrown terrorism", it is therefore relevant. Quasihuman | Talk 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

like I pointed out for criminal acts we have WP:N/CA which is more specific for notability in such cases than WP:EVENT. In any case no EVENT happened here so I do not see the relevance of WP:EVENT. A crime was alleged and arrests were made and the event was foiled. like plot spoiler has said in subsequent post that he does not believe anymore that this is relevant to AfD and I agree.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that WP:N/CA is link to a subsection of WP:EVENT, and does not contradict the rest of that page, but rather gives additional guidelines which are relevant in the case of a criminal act or alleged criminal act. From WP:EVENT: "This guideline is intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events, as well as breaking news." this article is covered under breaking news. If Plot Spoiler is withdrawing his claim, it might be helpful if he crossed out the relevant sentence in his original post. Quasihuman | Talk 10:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moving on from from that particular point, I would like to address Wikireader41's claim that this article would be notable even if the protagonists are acquitted. He offers a rationale for this - that it would document islamophobia. Thus far, I have found no sources which raise this point about this plot. The authorities say that this is not a religiously motivated plot (according to the Wall Street Journal article). Saying that this will be covered in reliable sources as islamophobia is WP:CRYSTAL. It is my opinion that this article is in WP:ANTICIPATION of the protagonists being found guilty. Quasihuman | Talk 13:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per WP:N/CA as a widely-reported criminal act. Though I do agree that "Alleged" would be a better title until the charges are confirmed. The word "plot" in that title is also problematic in that the men didn't seem to have any one specific plot or even set of plots, but were buying ammunition to make future plots possible; perhaps that sounds overly pedantic, but I expected to read in this article that these men had some sort of plan, and that doesn't appear to be the case. Khazar (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:N/CA.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Edison.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 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 delete. Not counting Wee Curry Monster's second "keep" opinion. Sandstein 07:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Morison

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

long unreferenced biography of article with no clear notabillity and no significant changes in five years. Previous afd prevents me from prodding Sadads (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The U. S. Patent Office records show he held a patent, but that is a primary source. I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this person in depth (or at all). Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the patent office confirm he was one of the people to hold the patent to the proximity fuze? If so, we might be able to redirect instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable from a cursory search for a role in the development of the proximity fuze, a major advance in military technology. Meets notability criteria but needs improvement. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to fail WP:BIO, as I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. It's worth noting that, according to the obituary linked in the article, he only 'participated in the development and testing of the radio proximity fuse', not invented it; even if he had, he wouldn't necessarily be notable as a result, but my point is this is even less of a claim to notability than it first seems. Robofish (talk) 20:55, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Proximity fuze. Seems to be his only notable contribution to history. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single obit is not sufficient to meet basic WP:BIO guidelines. A merge/redirect to Proximity fuze could be problematic as that article has presently contains no mention of Morison's putative role in its development and I have no clue whether Morison is found in the other sources cited there. The obit is too vague to be useful in this regard. — Scientizzle 19:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having only taken a minor part in the invention of the proximity fuze, I doubt his name is a viable redirect. Other than that, he does not pass WP:BIO so no point in keeping the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The source only states that he "participated in" the development of the proximity fuze, not that he was "instrumental" to the development (as the article currently states). With no other sources to go on - very little on Google when searching for the combination of "Rodney Morrison" and "proximity fuze" except mirror sites - I don't really see anything worth even merging or redirecting. Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced bio. obits in general don't satisfy WP:RS. no other sources found. but no objection to recreation if someone finds a reliable source. fails WP:BIO. -Atmoz (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This literally screams WP:SOFIXIT to me, we're too eager to delete these stubs without improving them. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So... Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 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 keep. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Young and Beautiful (song)

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

Article makes no attempt to flesh out its notability, and brief researches don't throw up any reliable sources discussing this song directly and in detail. It was deleted via PROD and undeleted following this ridiculous request which duplicates WP:ITSNOTABLE to an extent of true beauty. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 14:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speedy deletion has been declined. Prod has been overturned. And now what I tell you three times is true: the topic is notable, being documented in detail in sources such as Designing women: cinema, art deco, and the female form. It is our editing policy to keep such promising material. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because a 1933 song isn't mentioned much on the internet doesnt make it non-notable. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a couple of non-Internet sources which discuss this subject directly and in detail thus making notable? Cheers. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 22:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I could I would have already added to article. My only source is my memory - and I wasn't around in 1933. LOL. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please could I advise you to read WP:ITSNOTABLE, particularly the passage which says: "Simply asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability is problematic." If you cannot substantiate your claim that reliable sources provide significant coverage of this song, then you have essentially provided no helpful reason to keep the article. Cheers. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 22:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well-known song that has also been recorded by Howard Beaumont & John Taylor, Denny Dennis & Roy Fox, Phil Kelsall, and the Pasadena Roof Orchestra, according to an old R.E.D. Tracks catalogue that I have.--Michig (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)...and there are an awful lot of sources that discuss this song, e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. The song appears to be notable for the objections to its message almost as much as for its popularity. --Michig (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig; seems that there's plenty of sourcing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do see why this has been nominated, however, i's a very famous song so I think it should stay. TehGrauniad (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Rlendog (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per basic common knowledge, this being a song that is immediately recognisable by most people in the English-speaking world and many beyond. Yes, I know that this is original research, but I was born 25 years after this song was written and "know" that it is notable, but to check further I just asked a Pole of about my age and two English people in their twenties whether they knew this song and all replied "of course". Let's use deletion discussions for subjects where there is some genuine doubt about suitability for an encyclopedia, rather than ones that anyone with enough general knowledge to be capable of editing an encylopedia knows to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would add that this, being more notable by orders of magnitude than the Dad's Army episode, should be moved to Keep Young and Beautiful, and the current article at the title should get the disambiguator. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your comments above. It is indeed a very famous song, and the Dad's Army article suggests that the episode was named after the song. TehGrauniad (talk) 23:08, 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. Der yck C. 19:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover Story - The Ultimate Interview

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

Contested prod. My prod reasoning was: "No references, no evidence of notability, can't find anything in google or IMDb, nothing listed on IMDb pages for main participants that seems to resemble this film (eg. the director's IMDb page has nothing since 2007). Appears to be unverifiable." The prod was removed with the summary "This is a new movie & deserves a mention". Beloved Freak 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if this 2011 movie exists, there would be "Cover Story - The Ultimate Interview" "minus wikipedia" GHits for it. There are none. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourcable and strongly suspected hoax. While Laurens Postma does exist as a filmmaker, [16][17] there is nothing to connect the filmmaker with this alleged project other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. Fails WP:V in all counts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schmidt. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:57, 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. I'm afraid many of those commenting here have made invalid arguments. Being known and beloved locally does not establish notability for a general audience. The fact that similarly flawed articles exist does not change that. The fact that users arguing to delete this article are not Oregonians and do not have any first hand knowledge of these individuals is a good thing. It means they have no personal feelings about it and are basing their arguments on Wikipedia policy. It seems rather obvious that there was some off-site canvassing here as well, and I note that fans of the duo have previously attempted internet vote-rigging. As is noted below, this is not a vote. Sheer numbers cannot be allowed to overturn well reasoned arguments with a solid base in Wikipedia policy. However I'm not sure I agree with the unusual step of protecting the discussion itself, especially considering that the protection will not expire for several more days despite the fact that it is now over. People often worry a bit too much about such things, a closing admin who is doing their job properly can tell when there is an flood of WP:SPA users stacking votes. Having said that, I am going to take another unusual step and create-protect all of these articles. There is obviously a group of folks who are determined to force this content onto Wikipedia through any means necessary. Protection will force them to do it honestly and in accordance with our content policies. The articles can be worked on as userspace drafts until they have overcome the problems identified here, namely that these individuals and their programs are only known locally and coverage is brief and trivial. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cort Webber

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural nomination. These articles are about the co-hosts of a podcast that has been deleted following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy. Deletion was upheld at deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10). Both articles use content from the deleted article (see [18]), which is a violation of the copyright of our contributors unless the history is restored. However, history should not be restored if the material is inappropriate. Bringing it here for review, as either this must go, or that must come back. Note that there is evidently more content from the deleted version in Cort Webber than Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a podcast, it's a radio show. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.199.70 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as coverage in reliable third-party sources is either glancing or minimal and so the articles fail to cross the notability threshold. As in the previous joint article, the URLs had been omitted from the newspaper references making review of the sources more difficult for the reader. I have restored these references to completeness. - Dravecky (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 3,000 word interview on AOL is "minimal"? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.199.70 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These are significant copies of the deleted C&F article that provide no sourced content beyond that article. Hasteur (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. Isn't this new? 'Get the Look: Portland's Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts". 2011-04-04. Retrieved 10 May 2011.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.136.15 (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 67.134.136.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I did. While the article props the biography up, the significant portion if the ARTICLE is a backdoor attempt to resurrect the C&F show article after it went through a AfD, Deletion Review, annother AfD (that was very heavily commented on), and annother Deletion review (which was closed as Sometimes you just need to step back and accept that a discussion didn't go your way.). IF the personalities are sufficently notable, create a new article that does not depend on the deleted "C&F Show" article. Otherwise, move on. Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a nifty little catch-22 you're setting up there. Basically - Roberts & Webber ARE in fact notable on their own, and the suggestion to create individual articles based on their individual notability was made in the previous article's deletion, but now that those articles have been created, they too need to be deleted because they share some of the same details of the previously deleted article? There's no merit in that argument. It's semantic goose-chasing. The question is whether their individual articles meet notability standards. They do. It's fairly apparent, and most of the arguments to the contrary rely on a general ignorance of the subject, for example, people not knowing that the Midnight Movies and Lebowski Events were created by them, or not knowing that the CW affiliate appearance is readily available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.172.223 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 19 May 2011

74. IP commentator, have you read the wikipedia policies? If you had you would know that these personalities merit the same level of coverage as other local radio station personalities. The fact that a very significant portion of the articles is not about the individual artist, but about the show and the stuff they did together as part of the show (and it's future incarnations). The Fatboy article has some redeeming quality beyond the show content, but not enough to make a substantial claim for notability. To use an analogy, if a pair of afternoon radio personalities did a series of movie showings and episode watchings for their fans would they demonstrate significant notability? Probably not. Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if they were notable enough that there's coverage of those events by The Oregonian & the AP, events that only exist because they created them, then what? And what makes the Roberts page not-notable in the face of the AOL, Mercury and the Hats.com interviews? If the problem is that the Roberts article is less about notability and more about the article not spreading the focus, then shouldn't the argument be closer to TEG's, which is that time must be given for the article to be shaped instead of just getting immediately deleted? The tone of argument seems to have less to do with adhering to the intent of Wikipedia policy, and more to using policy to prove something to people you feel need to, essentially, "Deal with it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.172.223 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both: These articles are still being built. Making a decision at this point would be premature. The articles should be allowed to grow for a period before any decision is made. It is also interesting to note that many of both of them have coworkers, both from their KUFO days, as well as at Cascadia.fm, as well as most of their guest, who have full articles in Wikipedia. TEG (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These articles have had ample time to be edited and establish notability. Nothing you have said supports any reason for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both- I agree with Dravecky that the coverage in reliable third-party sources is marginal at best. We've had several AfDs and DRVs on this topic already and the people defending it have been unable to demonstrate notablity. Reyk _YO! 21:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3,000 word interview on AOL. *ahem* -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.199.70 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both: If only to piss off Dravecky, who seems to have a strange vendetta against these two guys. Poor dude. I wonder if he's ever felt the soft, warm embrace of sunlight. We can only hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.196.252 (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Struck vote of vandalous troll. Reyk _YO! 22:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, but then either incubate or userfy to TEG24601, who feels this material is improvable. TEG24601 should get the opportunity to improve it if he wants. This will mean that the userfying admin will need to fix the history for licencing purposes. (This need not be complex. It will be in order just to place the list of contributors on the userfied article's talk page and leave an edit summary indicating that this has been done.)—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both content is valid and notoriety has passed reasonable threshold for inclusion in an online wiki such as Wikipedia. Both figures are well know within the greater Portland, OR area as well as people across the world. Articles makes references to known, reliable third party publications.Aadain (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC) — Aadain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Both Anyone who questions the "reliability" of both articles' sources clearly lacks knowledge of Portland and Oregon. The Oregonian's the big daily paper here. Willamette Week has a weekly circulation of 80K+. The Portland Mercury is always widely read up and down the I-5 corridor. They've also appeared on shows like Outlook Portland and many times on television news stations like KGW. They may not be known in Virginia, but they're big here locally. The original article's page shouldn't have been deleted and neither should the pages for Webber and Roberts. The naysayers here are being both ruthless and nitpicky. The recent string of pranking vandals should, if anything, bespeak of the hosts' popularity....if little of the maturity of their listeners/fanbase. If only they were more willing to drudge up citations. That said, no amount of citations will ever appease the, to be it nicely, "pedantic" among us. Hawthornestreetblues (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — Hawthornestreetblues (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thank you for your assumption of bad faith. These persontalities are on the same level as any other local radio personality in terms of their notability. Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both "local" notability doesn't cut it. And The Weeks' circulation numbers are a moot point in this discussion. ArcAngel (talk) ) 01:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If local notability doesn't cut it, then we'd have to nix roughly 2/3s of all the articles on Wikipedia, including every professional sports team in the US. Does anyone care about the Portland Trailblazers in London? Nope. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both The hosts have been covered in the AP, they're on TV and they keep getting into the top 100 on iTunes. Where's the problem? As for what ArcAngel says, there's plenty of Wikipedia articles with backbones built entirely on local coverage. If you really want to get into it, isn't the New York Times "local"? The Oregonian is up there in stature. Their staff has won Pulitzers and it's one of the biggest publications in the NW. 64.134.136.15 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 64.134.136.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Where's the problem? Where's the sources to back up your claims? Where are they on TV at? Sources! Also, iTunes charting also doesn't confer notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 04:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- 3,000 words on AOL doesn't cut it? Take a look at the comment below, which points out that KGW doesn't archive their content past 90 days. The Oregonian and the AOL interview should be more than enough to establish notability.

Delete both: coverage is thin, local and generally fairly tangential. Also this recreation-from-deleted-content has more than a little of a G4 Speedy rationale. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both lacking reliable sources to meet notability. the fact that only multiple single purpose editors are voting keep says something. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that people who don't do Wikipedia are on here, trying to save the article, speaks volumes. Sorry, I don't really know all that much about the cite but you guys are all hung up on "reliability." If major dailies and internet sources aren't reliable, what is?

Keep Both are people just parroting "lacking reliable sources" to ensure adherence to the letter of wikipedia guidelines as opposed to intent? AOL's film site Cinematical.com conducted an over 3000 word interview with Roberts about his Geek: Remixed project, and Hats.com conducted another almost 2000 word interview with him as well. Neither of these mentions could or should be considered "glancing." The TV appearances on the Portland affiliate of the CW were sourced, and the Portland affiliate of NBC notes that they were featured guests, however their archives automatically reset after what appears to be 90 days. The Geek: Remixed project mention in the Mercury, the various other mentions in the Oregonian and the Willamette Week...I'm not sure where this "reliable sources" conflict keeps cropping up, unless you take into account the people making these judgments have literally no knowledge of the subject they're claiming to be policing. In which case it then makes perfect sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.172.223 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 76.105.172.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply Nobody is questioning the reliability of the Willamette Week but their only mention in the cited article is noting a failed attempt by a few fans to file "more than 900 fraudulent votes" in the survey. The "Shake-up at KUFO" article from The Oregonian is great but the only mention of either man is this: "KUFO's afternoon hosts, Cort and Fatboy, also were let go Friday." That's glancing coverage, at best. The rate only a single paragraph in the article about pdx.fm in The Oregonian and the "Dude Keeps Abiding" text is a single mention (as hosts of a movie screening) in a calendar of local events. The problem is not with the sources but with the content in those sources. Personally, I wish there were enough articles in which the duo are the focus to make keeping them possible, but there's not. - Dravecky (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - the lebowski & midnight movie articles only exist because they created the events the newspaper saw fit to cover. I don't understand how that doesn't speak to notability. Both those events are only being covered because they created them. And those arguments ignore the at least 5 other articles that still, by your criteria, meet notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.193.137 (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 74.92.163.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'Keep Both i hope I'm doing this right. Sorry, if I'm botching the format. The comment above, really, says it all. The CW, KGW, The Oregonian, Willamette Week, AOL....There's nine citations in the article, all from credible sources. This is ridiculous. The AOL article only should cut through any questions of notability.While you're all attacking Webber and Roberts, dozens of incredibly bad Wiki-articles are probably getting on here. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.199.70 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing here that wasn't in the deleted Cort and Fatboy article. This is an attempt to sneak in the same material under different names. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are more than a few articles that are listed in both pages that weren't on the initial Cort and Fatboy page. Again, this seems to be speaking to the idea that the people pushing for deletion are both unfamiliar with the subject they're trying to erase, and not actually reading the articles they're claiming to clean up. Nobody pushing for deletion has yet to explain why they consider AOL.com, The Oregonian, The Portland Mercury, The Portland affiliates of The CW and NBC, Hats.com and The Willamette Week to be unreliable sources beyond flatly stating "they're unreliable sources." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.163.253 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC) — 74.92.163.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - See my reply above. Many of the listed sources are notable and reliable but the coverage of the duo is glancing at best. Unconfirmable appearances as guests on a local TV show do not contribute to notability. - Dravecky (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - coverage of the duo is confirmable re: both the KGW and CW appearance, the CW appearance readily found on Youtube. The KGW appearance isn't readily viewable, but the KGW site does confirm they were featured guests. Besides which, this isn't a duo issue: the individual pages of both Webber and Roberts contain new articles that feature coverage that in no way could be considered "glancing," and would be apparent had you looked at them. It's hard to consider how the Mercury and AOL's coverage of Roberts' "Geek: Remixed" project, or the Hats.com interview with Roberts could be considered "glancing." This is becoming slightly ridiculous, and more than a little labored on behalf of those pushing the notability argument, especially considering there are people with valid, uncontested wikipedia pages using both Webber and Roberts as evidence of their own notability. If wikipedia is willing to use both of these people as a valid media cite to the notability of others, how is it they themselves, either as individuals or as a group, are not notable? That question is secondary, of course, to the accusations that 3000 word interviews by AOL are in and of themselves "glancing" mentions and not worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.163.253 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2011 — 74.92.163.253 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete both - Coverage is a little too local for a global encyclopedia. Not notable. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 20:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm afraid you're wrong. You clearly haven't looked at the citations from KGW, the lengthy interview on AOL/Cinematical or, yes, hats.com as well. Hawthornestreetblues (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both - The Cort and Fatboy entry keeps getting deleted, and therefore, both hosts attempted for their own pages. Now they're being penalized for using the same information from their original page? Both personalities are credible radio personalities, from their days on-air to their current status in internet radio in Cascadia.FM. Try listening to their show at www.cortandfatboy.com. It's the real deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlobach (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 May 2011— Mlobach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep both Long time Wikipedia reader, first time Wikipedia, ummmm....debater? Contender? Speak-up-er-er? I looked through the site's policies. Yeah, I don't see a problem here. Some of the links included on the article, indeed, are not in-depth articles. Still, there's two on Roberts' page that are super-duper credible. The AOL interview is 3,000 words! What more do you want?!!! Feel free to delete all the other citations and keep that one then. Who cares? That thing's bullet proof. "Credible," "reliable," the works! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.19.17 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 May 2011 — 68.178.19.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yet another IP address that doesn't sign, votes keep based on their interpertation, doesn't make a lot of contributions to WP, and GeoLocates to the Portland Oregon area. Hasteur (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is that so terrible? I think it clearly suggests they're notable enough for fans to care about the articles. Steven Walling 01:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and the decision to restrict commenting in this debate to registered users is appalling. If Roberts and Webber are significant enough for people who don't use Wikipedia to come in here and defend them, that says a lot about their relevance and importance. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is not appalling, the fact that single purpose editors have swarmed this with very similar arguments suggest it is originating from a single group of people. completely justified. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the same argument could be made that "a single group of people" are bound and determined to keep both this show, and its hosts, off of Wikipedia. Several of the naysayers have reappeared to exert the same arguments they applied to the original article back in March. Hawthornestreetblues (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it possibly be because these articles are nothing but a re-creation of the content of that article in an attempt to get a back door ruling on the original article? Please assume good faith on our contributions as I assume you'd like to have good faith assumed on yours. Hasteur (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for both, due to references from Willamette Week and The Oregonian which make it clear they meet the test of WP:V and WP:N. The former is a Pulitzer Prize-winning publication, and the latter is the paper of record for the state. Clearly that's enough verification of general notability, nowhere in the relevant notability guidelines is it stated you need national news coverage to merit an article. Also, note that the previous single article was about their radio program and these are biographies of the individuals. The question of notability is separate even if some material is reused. Material which is reused inappropriately can simply be removed in any case. Steven Walling 01:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: it won't need to be removed. If the articles are retained, we can easily tuck the history of the deleted article someplace and link to it ala Wikipedia:Merge and delete. (We can also do a list, but where possible it's best to restore the actual history.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thank you! Steven Walling 01:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the issue is not with the notability of Willamette Week and The Oregonian but rather that both men are barely or glancingly covered in these articles. For example, their only mention in the Willamette Week article notes a failed attempt by a few computer-savvy fans to file "more than 900 fraudulent votes" to try and rig a survey in favor of the duo. It says something for the depth of feeling about 'em in a few fans, as can be seen in this discussion as well, but does not support notability in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. - Dravecky (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dravecky, you may have a point about the WW coverage but what are your thoughts on the interviews on AOL/Cinematical and hats.com? Those are completely devoted to Roberts, quite long and relevant citations. You may quibble with hats.com but Cinematical is a biggie. There's also the KGW appearances and that article in Oregonian by Lee Williams. There's plenty of other stuff here to establish notability. WW is just gravy, at this point. Please, focus on something other than just a handful of the citations. Stumptowner (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue with the interviews is they are primary sources. The article lacks non-trivial secondary sources of substance. ttonyb (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roberts. The link to Cinematical is an interview, which leaves very much of it as the subject opinion of himself, but a good part of it does focus on him and it is a good addition to notability. Still, it cannot be the only source because then it doesn't make any sense for him to have reached that point. Obviously, as it can be seen by the rest of the sources, Roberts and Webber together have walked their road in what they do to get to they point where they are, but reasons for local coverage to be treated mildly are that it is more prone to both list routine announcements with more enthusiasm than mainstream would spare, and because it tends to portray local figures repeteadly (and with some loss of perspective), mostly because they fulfill a role that requires them to produce content sistematically while satisfying the consumption needs of a focused population. I don't feel that neither symptom is heavy in this case, but still the local attention doesn't give much to gather from. For what I see, Roberts and Webber are just doing their job, and while of course there are lots of jobs that get you to be notable much more easily than lots of others, there is no need to scratch for every small detail that could possibly grant them notability, or more like if you are doing it then perhaps is time to take a step back and wonder if perhaps it is not ripe yet. The repeated discussions of the subject in a consecutive manner is undoubtedly going to speak more of an attempt to push something into the project than a mere presentation of content would, so there's no bad faith here, if anything a bit of skepticism. There is no deadline, and for what is worth I don't think it will be much longer until they hit it - frankieMR (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this WP page is now semi protected to prevent anon IPs swarming and voting here. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that really that wise of a decision? Why should people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia and care enough about the duo to chime in be restricted from the debate. If anything, this situation should be seen as an outreach effort to possibly pull in newbies. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

newbies who are single purpose editors shouldn't swarm AfDs. it is votestacking to the maximum. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Both I helped created the initial Cort and Fatboy page and finally became so frustrated by the endless debates and viciousness of editors who know nothing about Oregon or the radio show that I had to walk away from it all. I'm saddened to discover that renewed efforts to bring them back to Wikipedia, where they rightfully belong, are once again being subjected to needlessly uptight grilling. The sources are there. The citations are there. From credible institutions and publications. KGW, Willamette Week, The Portland Mercury, The Oregonian, AOL. Shucks, the hats.com interview with Roberts, *on its own*, should be enough to establish credibility. I have never, ever seen another article on Wikipedia subjected to such intense scrutiny. This encyclopedia should not be used as a pulpit by editors that seem to derive a great deal of joy from bad-mouthing articles and flagging them for no other reason that...I'm not sure. A power trip? The desire to limit the scope of Wikipedia to entries that would appear in Encyclopedia Britannica? I, for one, encourage the expansion of Wikipedia to include a wide range of topics...provided the relevance and sources are there. Cort and Fatboy have paid their dues. They've got the citations and sources. In addition, they're treasured gems in Portland. They host movie screenings, trivia events and a fantastic radio show. Portland would be a much more boring place without them around contributing to the city's geeky subculture. If you take down their pages, you may as well remove the ones for other local institutions like Voodoo Doughnut, Stumptown Coffee, Tom Peterson and Mayor Sam Adams. If these articles are removed, well, then half 2/3s of Wikipedia should go down with them. There are, literally, millions of articles on this site that are 1/10th as interesting, relevant or well-sourced as the ones for Roberts and Webber. Perhaps its time for those that are voting "delete both" to go off in search of those? There are FAR more worthy scratching posts out there for them to dig their claws into. Stumptowner (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not advance notability for this article. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Stumptowner, paying dues is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia, neither is popularity. ttonyb (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As already stated this is another attempt to get the same material in, this time as two articles. There is still no non-trivial coverage and they and their show still aren't notable. Jarkeld (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're wrong. You clearly haven't looked at the citations from KGW, the lengthy interview on AOL/Cinematical or, yes, hats.com as well. Hawthornestreetblues (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - hats.com: a blog, fails WP:RS; KGW: may have some merit, but not enough; AOL/Cinematical: going to take another look when I've got a bit more time. Btw: I don't know if the comic cover that is being used now is used according to the Fair use policy. It's not used to illustrate the comic itself. Jarkeld (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both I haven't followed this saga at all, but the current incarnations of the articles look good and have solid references. --Esprqii (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both Articles – Neither article establishes notability using reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - does not meet notability threshold. Neutrality^talk 21:41, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Miller (D S Miller) - Author

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

Disputed prod. Bio, almost certainly autobio with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see any evidence of encyclopaedic notability by our notability guidelines. Can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, although any search is bound to be hampered by a common name.--Beloved Freak 13:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability that aligns with WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, although like the above user said, this could be due to a common name making it hard to find references, but from the article author's initial draft of the article, it does not seem likely that much more will be found. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate to make an argument without a source, and while there are sources for this author (you need to search "Internal Flow Systems" in addition to Donald Miller to filter out similarly named people), I'm having trouble finding ones that are reliable. There's a lot of references in forums, etc that imply that this is the standard book in the field, but it's hard to find an explicit reference to that, because honestly why would you review the standard book in the field? Instead you get a lot of book store hits, like I said forum hits, a decent number of citations [19] - all of which suggests notability but also suggests that it would take some digging to find explicit proof. So I realize that my argument doesn't have any definitive backing to it, but my point is I think this subject can be shown to be notable, but it would take a little while to find evidence. Jztinfinity (talk) 02:17, 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) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarrion, New South Wales

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

Apparently a small bit of Brewarrina, New South Wales, at best; Not notable as such, Geoscience, doesn't recognise any such place Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ~~I can't actually find anything to verify that this settlement even exists. Possible hoax?~~ Okay, I did find a couple of directory entries like this, but I'm still not convinced. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Further Comment, there is no reference to this place on Google Maps. However, I looked at this map, which claims to show the location of Tarrion. There are two entries there, next to each other, with the same name, which does not inspire confidence. I had a bit of a look on Google maps at that approximate location, and the only thing near a settlement in that area I can find is this, which appears to be a homestead rather than a "settlement". Note that many of the other locations listed on the Bonzle map, such as "Kentucky" to the southwest, appear to be similar: just homesteads or a couple of remote buildings on what look like private property. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I found a gazetted railway station on the Brewarrina railway line with that name but not a town or settlement. Orderinchaos 10:02, 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 Deleted as a recreated article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India as a rising superpower

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

This article was previously successfully deleted (under PROD) due to it consisting almost entirely of SYN, OR and NEO. This view was shared by multiple users and the deleting admin. The page has today been re-made by recently unblocked user Neilpine, it should be noted he was blocked for his behavior in articles such as this relating to 'power in international relations'. It should also be noted that he was the original creator of the page in question. The reason I bring this here is that the restoration went ahead without the deleting admin being contacted or without any explanation and I believe it should be deleted once again. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've restored the previous talk page where the fate of this article has been discussed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It has been brought to my attention that the actions of this editor in restoring the page were legitimate so I apologise to Neilpine for the accusation of bad practice. However, I still do argue that the page should be deleted due to the reasons given by me and other editors. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I feel it important to point out to everyone that the subject of this article on India being a rising power, is already covered over at the Potential Superpowers article. That article contains a well sourced section regarding India which does not consist of SYN, OR or NEO making the the 'India as a rising superpower' article redundant in addition to the previously listed flaws. The 'India as a rising superpower' talk page contains further information on this point. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 14:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYN POV piece. This is an essay not a encyclopedic article. --Sodabottle (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons I've expressed in the talk page. Swedish pirate (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is anything not covered elsewhere merge into either the India article or a super power article, but otherwise delete is an unneeded PoV fork Monty ₈₄₅ 16:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been awhile since I looked at the details of deletion and undeletion policy, but this article should not have been created, as it's a recreation of the article India as an emerging superpower, which was deleted (actually redirected) after extensive discussion (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/China_as_an_emerging_superpower_(fourth_nomination)). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speculation and synthesis; an argument and a puff piece. Not encyclopedic. Quigley (talk) 21:16, 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 delete under criteria A7: Web content with no indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athanaton Koramgame

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

Non-notable game. Fails WP:GNG. Of the 7 given references, 5 are to the subject's website (not independent). 1 is to another wiki which isn't reliable. The other is to a Gamespot forum that simply has two posts advertising the game (not reliable and probably not independent). The author has created the page several times in with slightly different names, all of which have been deleted or userfied to this article which has again been moved to mainspace. The other two I can find are Athanaton and Athaenara. May need a multi-article salt. OlYeller^Talktome 12:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - deleted this a couple of times for non-notability. Userfied and tagged it to have the editor solve the problems, but to no avail. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:29, 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 keep. Keep, but a bit of a weak keep at this point in time, so I would recommend further discussion on the article talk page, giving those that expressed keep some time to improve the article, and a further look at a later date as to a need or not for a later reevaluation. -- Cirt (talk) 06:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Robinson (curator)

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

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Queried by the page creator which is quite normal and doesn't normally stop a speedy deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from Talk:Julie Robinson (curator) (Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)):-[reply]
- This page should not be speedy deleted because... --BlueThird (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a number of Australian curators are already listed and are not the subject of dispute, there is clearly no reason why a curator, per se, can't be considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. While Julie Robinson certainly isn't at the same level of public awareness as Betty Churcher or Brian Kennedy, her work is still significant, particularly in the field of Australian photography, which in my opinion is currently somewhat underrepresented on Wikipedia.

The two exhibitions mentioned in the first paragraph where clearly of importance within that context, and as soon as I have the opportunity I intend to add a page on Century In Focus. Very briefly, that was a three-month exhibition at one of Australia's most important public galleries, accompanied by a large-format book that was distributed by Thames & Hudson. Ms Robinson spent years working on it, as the head of a team of curators. As Sebastian Smee, himself a Pulitzer Prize winner, put it: "If you are at all interested in Australian photography, whether or not you are from SA, you will want to see this show, or at least get hold of the catalogue."

Dpmuk has mentioned elsewhere that "None of the sources are about her and there is no other indication of notability." I don't dispute that they are, in fact, about her work, but I don't believe that makes the page invalid. It was never intended to be an in-depth discussion of her personal history or background, but instead is meant to provide a way for people to find out more about her work, which, I'll reiterate, is certainly of importance. Exhibitions are an important part of our public culture – they inspire and educate – and as such they fully deserve to be written about.

There would obviously be no place for mention of the other exhibitions that Ms Robinson has curated in the page on Candid Camera or Century in Focus, so removing the page, while perhaps making Wikipedia more compliant and slightly tidier in dpmuk's view, will also remove what was always intended as a hub for people to learn more about art and photography in Australia. Personally, I don't know enough to add entries for all of the other exhibitions she has curated, but I'd like to think that, in time, they too will have their own pages, and the page currently in question will still be here to serve as a hub for further discovery.

Knowledge and education should always trump bureaucracy. BlueThird (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep wrongful speedy, no WP:Before. wp:Artist: "1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". it's not reasonable to expect that there would be biographical references about curators, but rather the references will be about their work. if this is the criteria, then speedy all the other (curators). Slowking4 (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ (as the person who placed the speedy). They are not an artist - it is not there work, at least that's my interpretation of what they do, so I don't think that applies (although you may disagree). If this had been one of the artists in the exhibitions then I'd agree that the references in this instance are enough to suggest notability and so enough to avoid speedy, however as the curator of the exhibition, I did not think that was enough. Maybe I was wrong but that's no reason to question my integrity. Dpmuk (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Using A Century In Focus: South Australian Photography 1840s–1940s as an example, a team of curators spent two years drawing together a collection of 400 photos, the most recent of which had been taken 60 years before, by scores, possibly hundreds, of different photographers. Some of these were in a collection recently acquired by AGSA, but others were borrowed from galleries overseas. Some of the earliest photos of South Australia, for example, are held in Scotland. There would almost certainly have been some level of negotiation involved in arranging for the transfer of these photos, and for their insurance. It would be safe to assume that virtually all of the photographers involved were long dead, and provided no impetus for the exhibition. So, while the individual works are undoubtedly the creation of the photographers, the exhibition was very much the work of the curators. BlueThird (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment i opined you were wrong, nothing about intent or integrity. i just think it's better to work with the good faith editor here, rather than speedy (bitey). i also agree with Johnbod, there are a lot of curator bios here, some of which are not notable: this one is above average. took me five minutes to find all the exhibition catalogs. we need a better notability criteria for curators, they don't have google scholar for easy cite metrics. how about "multiple exhibition catalogs over a hundred pages, or exhibition chapbooks totaling over a hundred pages"? (i know quantity over quality). Slowking4 (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Accusing me of not carrying out WP:BEFORE seems like questioning my integrity to me. I've !voted below with a more detailed comment. Dpmuk (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        the inference i made is that since i found eight books, with a google books, added within five minutes, no before had been done. are you saying that you did a before, and did not find?; or found and speedied anyway? nothing personal, before is widely ignored, and even winked at by arbcom.Slowking4 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Before applies to AfD nominations not speedies. I doubt anyone does before for an obvious garage band (and I doubt people would expect them to) but in less obvious cases some before is good practice and I did what I thought was a reasonable amount. I clearly didn't put the right term into google books as I didn't find all the publications you list but I did find one or two of those and discounted them as establishing notability - they're publications by her not about her and are only slightly better than self-published. In the lack of any sources about her I thought speedy was appropriate. I'd also note that most of the keep votes here are based on some concept of her work establishing notability not the more normal method of establishing notability by having sources about her so I make no apologies for tagging for speedy. In hind sight I may have been mistaken (as speedys are meant to be uncontroversial) but I think it was a perfectly reasonable mistake to make. Dpmuk (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we are rather too lenient on curators and academics. But under current norms, she is a deal more notable than many curators, especially American ones, with articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain how she meets a notability guideline? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Senseless enumeration of jobs which even smacks of self-promotion. According to Wikipedia:Notability (people), bios should give the reader a sense of how and why the person is significant in his field. This hasn't even been tried here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've heard of stubs? To start deleting things because they aren't yet very good – and I fully admit this isn't – would go against the whole ethos of Wikipedia. Everything has to start somewhere, and in the meantime something is better than nothing. The reason I put the page up in the first place was because I started to add to or improve the biographies of the photographers who featured in Candid Camera, a major exhibition at AGSA that I happened to see last year. Then I remembered about A Century In Focus, and started to wonder what else Robinson had worked on. It turned out to be a significant body of work, and as I said above, it seemed appropriate to put up something that allowed people to find out more about that. I'd obviously be delighted if someone else came along and improved the page. As for the suggestion that it "smacks of self-promotion"; that's risible. I'm quite sure that any curator at a gallery as important as AGSA would have done a far better job of this, certainly to the point where there wouldn't be questions on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueThird (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any sources that indicate real in-depth coverage of this person to satisfy notability criteria. As per the comment above, this is basically just a list of jobs. --DAJF (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- She has had only one "job" since 1988. Curating exhibitions is (oddly) what curators do, and a large part of how their work and standing is assessed. Also writing published catalogues, of which she has a long list. But for us at AFD to judge the significance of a number of exhibitions we never saw, on the other side of the world for most of us, many before the internet really got going, is very difficult. Also judging how much of the extensive coverage these exhibitions no doubt received in their day should be credited to the curator. I can only repeat that by the standards normally set here for curators, she passes. Google search on her name is not the right test here. Johnbod (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll add to Johnbod's comment. I've pointed this out before, but since I've formed the distinct impression that there are people here who are voting according to their prejudices, without bothering to read the arguments, it probably needs to be said again. Century In Focus is entirely a curator-created exhibition – it simply could not have happened without, in fact, a team of curators, which was led by Julie Robinson. It was on display for three months at one of Australia's most important public art galleries. A hefty catalog was published, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning art critic said at the time: "If you are at all interested in Australian photography, whether or not you are from SA, you will want to see this show, or at least get hold of the catalogue." (I've added the quote to the article, and a page for Smee. For now, it's just a stub, and I'm assuming, of course, that winning a Pulitzer goes some way to establishing notability.) There is no doubt at all that at least some of the exhibitions Robinson has curated are notable, and if a work is notable, and part of a volume of work likely to be of similar standard, then in my opinion the curator is too. I'll also reiterate that if every new page has to be perfect from the start, Wikipedia might as well be sealed in a capsule right now. BlueThird (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been suggested to me that I should register a formal vote, though I'm sure someone would have guessed. BlueThird (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see curators falling in between WP:ARTIST and WP:ACADEMIC (and work needs to be done to amend those notability guidelines to explicitly include curators). Sources that help establish the notability of an artist in an exhibition also help establish the notability of the curator of that exhibition. Robinson's curatorial record, her publishing record and her affiliation with the University of Adelaide I believe establishes her notability per WP:ACADEMIC. The independent coverage of the exhibitions she curated certainly help establish notability to satisfy WP:ARTIST. I know other stuff exists but seriously, other lousy stuff of questionable notability does exist. I think this is a safe keep. freshacconci talktalk 11:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also note that WP:ARTIST does list "scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" under the notability requirements. I'd say curators count as "other creative professionals". I'd say point number 4, "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" applies here. I may just be WP:BOLD and add curator to that list. freshacconci talktalk 11:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I think there are more specific film-trade criteria somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support the inclusion of curators in WP:ARTIST, and there's certainly verification. I also think this is a borderline keep based on sources provided via the GNG, but I grant that argument seems more a stretch. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Curators can be notable and create notable exhibitions, catalogs, books and enhance our range of perceptions concerning an infinite array of material. She seems notable to me...Modernist (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain how she meets a notability guideline? LibStar (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's an expert in her field and clearly a notable personage in the Australian art world, ~~here's a review of her John Cage show [20]~~ here's a review of the 2004 Adelaide Biennial [21]. Perfectly valid to cite these here by the way...Modernist (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually by an American curator with a similar name. BlueThird (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention a blog site that wouldn't count as a reliable source. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant here anyway, but as confirmed by reliable source, it being a blog site doesn't automatically mean that it's not a reliable source. BlueThird (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this clearly falls into a non reliable source. as per WP:RS. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be invalid to include that on the main page – RealTime is a nationally distributed Australian arts magazine. Printed, not just online. Hope you won't mind me not posting it, though, I've got some trouble on my talkpage.

No problem - I'll add the Real Time link...Modernist (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This curator has led the creation of a major exhibition. PRL42 (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply being a curator in a major art gallery does not grant automatic notability. she lacks third party indepth coverage about her achievements. most coverage simply confirms she has worked on exhibitions. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I' don't think that curator's should fall under WP:ARTIST as it's not immediately obvious how much input they've had to an exhibition etc which is distinctly different from the artists themselves. As other's have said there is a lack of third party in depth coverage about her and so she does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. If any of the sources gave some critical discussion of the curatorial aspects of the exhibitions (e.g. the choice of photos or the layout), rather than simply stating she curated them, then I think that would go some way to showing notability but they do not appear to do so. I have done good faith searches but with such a common name and not being an expert in this area it's possible I've missed some searches so I will happily reconsider my !vote if new, relevant, sources are found by others. Dpmuk (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed difficult, but she has done a number of large overview photographic exhibitions where one can reasonably presume the degree of curatorial input in choice etc to have been relatively high. Only stuff from the most recent years can be expected to leave much trace on the internet. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep after assessing the above debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have carefully reviewed the sources that have been added to the article. Not one analyzes the subject of this article at all--there are no secondary sources on her. They do not amount to the "Significant coverage" required by WP:SIGCOV. All argumentation on this page about how curating may or may not be being given short shrift cannot overcome the fact that the subject is not notable. Abductive (reasoning) 06:44, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Boomerang Australia

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

Cut-and-paste from Boomerang_(Australian_TV_channel)#Currently_airing_on_Boomerang - redundant to the section in this article. Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Orderinchaos 22:14, 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. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Palace (York)

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

Disputed prod (whose disputant, quixotically, admits that this building is non-notable). No evidence of third-party sourcing for this structure. Also unlikely search term, so no real point in leaving as a redirect. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grade I listed building.[22] Articles about listed buildings are usually kept. Grade I listed buildings, the highest classification, are clearly inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to York Minster. Whether or not the building in notable in its own right, the information is worth preserving and ought to be mentioned in the York Minster article whether or we keep a holding stub for a separate article. I agree that this page tite isn't that useful as a redirect, but it is worth adding as an entry on the Old Palace disambiguation page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a Grade I listed building is in the top 2.5% of all listed building. Notability should not be in question here. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Includes remains of the Archbishop's Chapel of c1230-40. Might be merged with the Minster because of proximity but not architecturally connected. If there were an article on the Minster Library (unquestionally notable) it could go there. Reliable sources will need searching out. Pevsner and Neave (Buildings of England: York and the East Riding, 1995) does not include the new extension though it does describe the 19th century structure. Almost anywhere but in York it would get an extensive write up in guides, of course. The title is also a problem because as pointed out it is usually described as either the Minster Library, which it houses, or the Archbishop's Chapel of which little remains. The article is right in asserting that this is the correct name of the building. York is poorly covered in Wikipedia; that is not because of lack of notable features or interest but because a serious amount of work is needed to do things justice. The sources are rarely sufficient in themselves and those best qualified to write them up will usually have done original research or be disqualified, at least in the view of some editors, because they have some association with the subject. --AJHingston (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I think that a merge with the Minster would be a mistake. There are various notable buildings in the vicinity with some connection with the cathedral and there is already quite enough to say about the Minster without adding other buildings. Although the Old Palace houses some Minster staff the Minster Library is effectively a separate institution with links with the University of York. And putting the building in a new library article would be slightly odd as it is not the sole occupier. There is enough that could be said about the building to justify an article of its own. Most of it is only 200 years old and so normally dismissed, but Pevsner & Neave are kind about it and the genuinely modern extension is interesting in itself. The solution to the search problems may be to create a new article on the Minster Library, which could then have a link to this one. Archbishop's Palace York and Archbishop's Chapel York should both direct to Bishopthorpe Palace (a stub demanding a lot of work) and I'd be inclined not to complicate things further there. --AJHingston (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grade I listed buildings are considered notable architecturally. Keith D (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but also probably move to Minster Library, which is clearly the name given to the building in both the listed buildings databases I habitually use (here and here - with this reference to the arcade of the palace as well). As a Grade I it's a pretty sound keep for me anyway, but it's also clearly got notability beyond the Minster. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in danger of going off topic here, but the registers are not reliable when it comes to the names of buildings. English Heritage rely on the name written on the top of the sheet when the survey was done, not necessarily correct, sporadically updated, and the other lists follow. I could give York examples. The building has changed with the addition of the Alcuin Wing in 1998 and so did the name. There's every reason to write up the Library though, with more here. --AJHingston (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — suggesting the deletion of a Grade I listed building demonstrates a misunderstanding of the notability of buildings in the United Kingdom. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the others. Look at the article for Grade I listed building to understand that rating. Its clearly notable. Dream Focus 14:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue by Jonathan Bowen (talk)

- Strong Keep - Grade I listed buildings in the UK are architecturally notable, and should always be kept and improved. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep the information but rename as York Minster Library, the name by which it is Grade 1 listed by English Heritage [23]--Harkey (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English Heritage register is absolutely not an authoritative list of the official or existing names of buildings, nor is it maintained as such. Sometimes English Heritage do amend the register when changes come to their attention, but that can itself leave the register in an anomalous position. An example is the church of St Mary Castlegate in York, which is now on the register as The York Story, that being the name that the register entry was changed to some years after listing because it was the name of a permanent exhibition it contained. But that exhibition was removed years ago and the building is now called St Mary's Castlegate by the trust who have it in their care. For Wikipedia to refuse to accept the names given by the owners or occupiers of listed buildings has significant implications. I say that with feeling, being responsible for three including one whose name on the register was never the legal name and not the one we use. --AJHingston (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Then a redirect from Minster Library to this article. Much as with The Gherkin.I live close to York and have always heard the place referred to as "The Minster Library", although there could be some confusion here between the historic Grade 1 listed building itself and its function as a library. My vote was to "Keep" the article's present content, however, not enter into any deep polemic about it at this stage.--Harkey (talk) 20:38, 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 Speedily deleted on request from author (CSD G7). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morten Sondergaard

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

Bit of a tricky one. Autobiography of an apparently successful business man. I can't see any evidence of encyclopaedic notability. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, although there are some trivial mentions. There is apparently a poet with a very similar name so there may be some confusion in sources.

However, if this man is Morten Sondergaard Pedersen, (Danish business man, same age) there is a bit more coverage. A BBC article from 2005 mentions him being arrested, alleged fraud etc. There is a similar Times article about a Danish "pornographer" suspected of fraud. If this is NOT the same man, I really don't think there's enough to demonstrate notability. If this IS the same man, there may be enough, but it may be a case of WP:BLP1E. Beloved Freak 11:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:19, 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Watton

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

I can't see any evidence that the subject of this (auto?)biography meets notablity guidelines. He is a published writer and has "skirted on the periphery of the media", appearing on Countdown and Fifteen to One, but I can't see anything here that demonstrates enough notability for an article. Couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources either. Beloved Freak 11:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to me like he fails WP:AUTHOR. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:38, 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. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lock

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

Confused stub, lacking substantive referencing. Whilst allegedly "an important post-war social researcher", the topic is not a social researcher at all, but a minor architect. No evidence of substantive reliable third-party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems a noted UK based postwar urban planner. Exhibitions on his life and work. Centre named after him at University of Westminster. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PS I think this http://www.aim25.ac.uk/cgi-bin/vcdf/detail?coll_id=5178&inst_id=15 contains useful information. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PPS - Have added some refs and info. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. The University of Westminster material makes his notability clear and provides a full third-party source. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable enough. Entry in Who's Who (not necessarily an indicator of notability, I know, but generally a pretty good one). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who's Who is a definite indicator of notability. Wikipedia aims to be wider. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Not according to various WP:RSN threads it's not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British Who's Who, like the Dictionary of National Biography, is considered to be a very reliable source and confers automatic notability, The American Marquis Who's Who, a vanity publication, is not and does not. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 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. There appears to be no consensus at this time between those that wish to keep versus merge, but certainly not anything here to result in delete. Therefore, further discussion should take place on the talk page, with regard to merger or not. -- Cirt (talk) 06:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tvinde waterfall

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

Obscure, if "spectacular", waterfall. No substantive, reliable, third-party coverage. Brief mentions in guidebooks appears to be all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article does not say what river it is a part of, but I'm sure whatever it is, there is an article on that river. Being just a line like it is, it should be merged into the article on that river. Sebwite (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does any source (reliable or otherwise) in {{find}} appear to state this -- making it difficult to identify where to merge it, let alone add that information WP:Verifiabley. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The river is the Tvinna, according to this, but there is no article for that.

Perhaps then it may be worth renaming this article to to the name of the river and making it about the river. Rivers generally are notable, and it could remain a stub until it is expanded. Sebwite (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the waterfalls pictured in that link appear to match that of the Tvinde waterfall. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot easily rely on pictures for information since they are taken at all different angles under a variety of conditions, so two pictures of the same waterfalls may not appear alike. Variances in natural conditions can make a waterfall and its surroundings appear different at different times. Sebwite (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying rock-structure should however be the same -- but isn't (stepped versus unstepped). This can more clearly be seen from Yngvadottir's picture below. Also even if Tvinna is the correct name, the maps I've seen would seem to indicate that it's a fairly short tributary that merges almost immediately into a larger river (and it is that river that is more likely to be the notable topic). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I've said in my comment below, there are 2 different waterfalls called Tvinnefossen. (Tvindefossen and Tvinnefossen are both correct for this one; Norwegian dialectal variants.) This one is on a stream rather than a river - its name is the Kroelvi. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Voss article, where the information would easily fit. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of subsequent developments I'd be very comfortable with Keep as a separate article. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Maps lists it as 'Waterfall Tvindefossen'. It appears that the closest locality is Granvin, some 20km away. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has the waterfall as only 12km from Voss, which is a much bigger place than Granvin. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Different waterfall from Tvinnefossen in Hopland. This is the one the article is about, although it is also called Tvinnefossen. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~, either as a freestanding article or merged into Voss~~. It is a well known attraction and was painted by Johan Christian Dahl, though sadly that's one of his paintings we don't have on Commons. There is a well populated Commons category and I have added that, info, references, and external links. There are also scads of YouTube vids, which I left out. I'm not sure what the applicable notability guidelines are for a waterfall, but this one does get mentioned a lot. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC) - On searching newspapers, I found a complete article on it in Bergens Tidende. Apparently in 2001 it was internationally famous as a fountain of youth and liquid Viagra. Reference added, plus a follow-up ref from the end of the same year mentioning its great popularity. I think that puts it over the top as an independently notable tourist sight (though you have to drink the water to get the 10 years taken off your age and the improvement in sexual performance, sorry, YouTube viewing doesn't count). And notability doesn't expire. (There was also a hotel there in the 1890s, but I can't find a better source for that than this.) So I have struck my acceptance of merging the content into the Voss article as an option. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (as nom) into Voss, per above discussion. Still no indication "that sources address the subject directly in detail", so still no WP:Notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I don't know what the applicable standards are for waterfalls. It has its own entry in at least two online directories of waterfalls. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had not yet checked newspapers. When I did, I found an entire article on it. Modifying my statement above accordingly. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would have agreed with the nominator originally, but with the additional sources uncovered during the AfD (nice work Yngva) I think that we have a perfectly reasonable stub on a sufficiently notable landmark. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:31, 26 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. This discussion has established some notability, but most of the discussion revolved around the guidelines's application rather than the subject's notability. With an inconclusive debate about how to apply the guidelines, I'm closing this discussion as no consensus, default to keep. Der yck C. 19:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Katz

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

Not notable William M. Connolley (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would the nominator care to expand on his reasons for this nomination? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Not really. He just isn't notable. Is there any more to be said? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the long discussion below it looks as if there is plenty to be said. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think it's fair to expect the nominator to prove a negative, namely the absence of evidence of notability. The discussion begins when some people start offering possible evidence of notability, and others try to refute it. That's what is happening below. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Average academic mathematician. Based on Google Scholar search, his h-index appears to be about 17 which is nothing special for a mathematics professor with tenure at a reputable research university. No evidence of notability beyond normal academic activities. Perchloric (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be valuable if you would source your data on the h index of mathematicians. Although there is general agreement that some subjects (like neurobiology) get higher cites than others (like systematic theology), there seems to be a lack of quantitative data on such issues, and judgements about notability tend to be made on the basis of past precedent. Although h index is certainly not the only factor to be considered in assessing notability (the above average professor [24]) it does have the advantage of being objective (after making allowance for subject differences, self-cites etc.) Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Perchloric is correct that the subject's citation rates, viewed as statistics alone, do not appear to rise above the level of a typical math professor with tenure at a reputable research university (say, top 50-70 worldwide). However, I feel that departs somewhat from the "average academic" rule and sets the bar too high. Researchers significant enough to be awarded tenure at research universities are those judged by their peers to be of such benefit to the profession, that they are given lifetime appointments at decent salaries for little teaching, purely on the belief that they will continue to do good research. Those who fulfill that promise in a long and fruitful career are not insignificant in their contribution to human knowledge, and they are far and away above average. Ray^Talk 05:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF applies I presume. You assertion that merely being tenured is enough looks to be wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My assertion is that "merely" being tenured at a top ranked research university and hundreds of citations in a low-citation field (in other words, being known and greatly respected among peers) is enough. This is quite different from your typical tenured prof at a middle level university who teaches 4 sections of 120 calculus students each per semester. Ray^Talk 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He wrote a book in a prestigious series that is cited by leading mathematicians. (Katz, Mikhail G. Systolic geometry and topology. With an appendix by Jake P. Solomon. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 137. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007. xiv+222 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8218-4177-8 MR2292367) If Mikhael Gromov finds Katz's work to be notable, then it's notable, regardless of h-indexing (where h seems to stand for hoi polloi!). This is a short article, and doesn't seem to be a vanity piece. It's less clear that the educational work is notable or need be mentioned. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at his material at Mathematical Reviews. It is obvious that he is a world-class mathematician, who is publishing regularly in leading journals like Duke, GAFA, Israel JM, etc. He seems to regularly make substantial progress on many important problems, although I didn't see anything described as a breakthrough, yet. I usually contribute to bibliographies of only members of the academy of sciences, etc., but this guy seems far better than the average academic bibliography that passes AfD. (I suggested deleting a French academic's biography a few months ago, who was far less accomplished, and somebody corrected me.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Marcel Berger in his popular article "What is... a Systole?" lists the book as one of two seminal books in systolic geometry. The author contributed a section to the widely influential book "metric structures for Riemannian and non-Riemannian spaces" (over 800 cites in google scholar). Tkuvho (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited by Tkuvho was from the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, and was in the series discussing recent clever ideas (What is ... ?). The book cited by Tkuvho was written by the aforementioned Gromov. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify the "What is...?" series does not describe recent clever ideas. It describes mathematical objects that are not typically encountered in standard set of graduate courses. To quote the AMS on the subject they say The “WHAT IS...?” column carries short (one- or two-page), nontechnical articles aimed at graduate students. Each article focuses on a single mathematical object, rather than a whole theory. The Notices welcomes feedback and suggestions for topics for future columns. Messages may be sent to notices-whatis@ams.org.

Comment Thanks for the precise quotation and citation. Nonetheless, the topics are not of historical interest, but of contemporary interest, and "clever" is a fair description of a topic that is of importance and can be described briefly. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-point: Contrary to Tkuvho, Berger's article never uses the word "seminal", which would have implied originality and influence. It just says that Katz's book "covers almost all the results and references for recent developments". Katz's book is a review; it's a textbook based on a course he taught. It has 24 citations in Google Scholar. That does not make it, or him, notable. It just means he has written a decent review that one of the experts in the field said is useful. Perchloric (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy here. In Wikipedia terms, "notable" means having been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources. The purpose of this AfD is not to determine whether the subject is a good mathematician or not. Wikipedia is not an academic promotions board. The purpose of the AfD is to determine whether the person has been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources, a rather less subjective task. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

A straightforward reading of WP:PROF makes it clear that being "noted" in the sense of just being mentioned is not enough. For academics one requires significant coverage of the person themselves in reliable sources (absent in this case) or evidence of "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". So actually we need evidence that he is more than just a "good mathematician". Such evidence is also absent in this case, since the subject's citation rates are pretty typical of professors of mathematics at research universities. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be dismissing Mikhael Gromov as a non-reliable source!?!!! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Mikhael Gromov say that Katz is notable (by the WP:PROF definition, as having made a significant impact on a broadly construed area of study)? Perchloric (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Academic, the best case to be made for him is 1, but as a professional mathematician it is my personal opinion he has done solid work but not significant. I would go on to point out that writing a book is neither uncommon for mathematicians, the fact that having a book is not considered significant is even listed in the notes to criteria 1, and they use a mathematics book that gets reviewed on something like mathscinet as an example. He is a good mathematician, but just not especially notable. Thenub314 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy here. In Wikipedia terms, "notable" means having been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources. The purpose of this AfD is not to determine whether the subject is a "significant" mathematician or not. Wikipedia is not an academic promotions board. The purpose of the AfD is to determine whether the person has been noted by a sufficient number of independent sources, a rather less subjective task. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I may have misunderstood the guidelines. I have spent some time today re-examining BLP's of mathematicians trying to educate myself about as to the norm. In most cases that I looked at they seem to be able to reference some publication for facts concerning the person's career, life history, etc. See Paul Sally for an example. Most sources for the pages I glanced at were taken from some biography or a newsletter, beginning of a book, etc. Someone, somewhere had found a reason to write about the people themselves. In the case of this page I cannot find references to verify that he is a leader of his subfield, or that his university is ranked internationally as one of the top mathematics departments. These things may be true, and much more besides but what published references exist on which to build the article? Wikipedia are not supposed to be a crystal ball. To me that suggests it would make more sense to write about him when/if he has been written about elsewhere first. Otherwise we will be left discussing our views of the importance of his works, and I suspect very few are qualified to make that assessment. Thenub314 (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give Paul Sally has a GS h index of 9, comparing like with like, less than Katz, and the personal information given seems of a minor nature (although probably not to its subject). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I am not entirely sure I am following your point. Are you sure your comparing like with like? Are citation rates really the same in Representation theory as they are in geometry? I find it notable that by this GS h-index metric Katz comes ahead of people like Jesse Douglas, Laurent Schwartz, and on par with Ngô Bảo Châu (I had to alter some characters in his name to get any hits). To me this means either as well recognized as some Fields medalists, or there is something a bit fishy with using Google scholar as a metric. Since I am fairly certain he is not on par with fields medalists the I have to say that the use of google scholar is misleading. Which is why I advocate looking for secondary sources that have written about him. If he is really notable within his community it will show up in an article somewhere and we will be free from trying to estimate his impact ourselves. My point is singling out Paul Sally is that he has appeared in many newspaper/magazine/etc articles about him, which doesn't seem to be true of Katz. Thenub314 (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thenub314, you did not misunderstand the guidelines. See my response to Xxanthippe, above.Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:Academic, being a leader in a subfield is sufficient to establish notablity (C1). Tkuvho (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hard to even debate this article in its current shape. Did some cleanup per talk. No opinion yet. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. FWIW "M Katz" is a very common name, according to citation databases, so care must be taken to avoid false positives. WoS query "Author=(Katz MG) Refined by: Subject Areas=(MATHEMATICS OR MATHEMATICS, APPLIED) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows 17 publications, h-index=7, with ~100 total citations. I think GS is probably biased upward in this case, for example, the top hit is to an unpublished manuscript posted at arXiv, to which most of the citations seem to be from Katz himself. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Agricola44's purportedly "factual" account is not merely misleading but outright erroneous. Mathscinet gives a publication total of 45, not 17. Thus GS is off by about 200% percent. Obviously their h-factor figures are not biased upward, but rather downward. The article you claim to be an unpublished arxiv post was indeed published, see Croke, C.; Katz, M.: Universal volume bounds in Riemannian manifolds. Surveys in Differential Geometry VIII, Lectures on Geometry and Topology held in honor of Calabi, Lawson, Siu, and Uhlenbeck at Harvard University, May 3- 5, 02, edited by S.T. Yau (Somerville, MA: International Press, '03.) pp. 109 - 137. See arXiv:math.DG/0302248. Tkuvho (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. Please re-read (carefully) what I said. I did not claim that the manuscript was never published. I said the top hit was to the unpublished version and that is indeed a fact. The published paper does not appear in the top 100 hits. I do not know why GS behaves so often in such weird ways, but it is part of the reason that WP:PROF names WoS and Scopus as reliable citation indexes, but has a large paragraph of disclaimers for GS, finally calling it "a rough guide only". I checked MathSciNet and the query "Katz, Mikhail" returns 18 papers, not 45. This figure basically agrees with the results from WoS I reported above. I'm willing to be shown that perhaps there's better query that returns these other publications, that maybe he publishes under different names, or something of the like. Please report the MathSciNet query you used, so that it can quickly be checked. That would really help move the debate. At this point, it still appears that the figures of 17-18 papers, h-index around 7, and total cites of around 100, are essentially correct. I'll wait to cast a !vote until the citation statistics are recognized as being firm. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    - Update. I found another 25 papers in MathSciNet using query "Katz, Mikhail G". That brings it closer to what you've reported above. Will double-check WoS to see if these papers are there. Still holding my !vote. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
      - Citations Statistics from WoS. The tricky part of this case, as I said above, is the commonality of the surname. I submit that the most accurate (and fair) counting of Mikhail Katz's citations is obtained from WoS using the query "Author=(katz m*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(MATHEMATICS, APPLIED OR MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY OR MATHEMATICS) AND [excluding] Authors=(KATZ, MJ) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI", which specifically excludes Matthew Katz, who also has published many papers in mathematics. The stats are: 59 papers, h-index 11, total citations ~360. Agricola44 (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
        Try http://ams.rice.edu/mathscinet/search/publications.html?pg1=IID&s1=197211 . Tkuvho (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems to agree with what I found above. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The information above is valuable and shows the need to consult several databases. A search on GS with author:"Mikhail G Katz" gives 46 hits in the appropriate subject area with some 670 cites and an h index of 13. Of the hits, 14 are ArXiv papers, probably giving some double counting, and several from scientific databases like the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System which are non-journal sources independent of the subject and add notability. Not everything in GS is to be discounted. Xxanthippe (talk).

True. But even the highest numbers uncovered so far are well below any reasonable threshold of notability. Most science/math/engineering professors at research universities are well-regarded in a sufficiently narrow area of study, with some well-cited articles (50-100 citations, ballpark) to their name. That doesn't make them all notable. Perchloric (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article makes any claim of notability, even after people have worked on it since it was nominated. His advisor Mikhail Gromov has an article with 1358 citations, but Katz' highest is 46. The article on Systolic geometry says that it was "conceived by Charles Loewner and developed by Mikhail Gromov, Michael Freedman, Mikhail Katz, and others." Loewner's highest cited paper has 258. Freedman won a Fields Medal. Katz? Should be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 13:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You seem to be relying on Agricola44's erroneous "facts", see above. There is nothing in WP:Academic that envisions comparisons with the advisor's influence, or with a Field's medalist's influence. By that standard, we will have to delete 99% of our biographies. On the contrary, WP:Academic specifically mentions that leadership in a subfield is a sufficient verification of notability. Tkuvho (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I came to my own conclusions, thank you. If we had an article on all the professors in the world, we would indeed have to delete 99% of them for being not notable, like this guy. Abductive (reasoning) 03:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. On the last point C1 of WP:PROF says "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" (my emphasis) i.e. particularly not a narrow subfield. It also says "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", but the inline references don't do that, they simply point to his works.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. You haven't finished reading the relevant paragraph at WP:Academic. The policy paragraph points out that publication in a subfield is not sufficient proof of notability with the exception of a leader in the subfield. Tkuvho (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of pass of WP:Prof#C1. Looking back on the past history of these academic AfD debates I find that many hundreds of publications are expected to pass [WP:Prof#C1]]. Subjects with h indices of less than 10 are usually found to be not notable, those with greater than 15 are usually found to be notable. The intermediate range often leads to much discussion, as in this case. However, it had several times been suggested that the citation rates in mathematics are generally lower than in other subject (I wish we had reliable data on this) and so I think that this BLP qualifies for a pass of the above average professor test. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Counter-point WP:Prof#C1 makes it clear that this article should be deleted. It reads "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." So far all that has been provided is evidence that the subject's work has been cited, but not that he has made a significant impact on the broad field he works in. If he had, there would be independent reliable sources talking about what a significant person he was, or how significant his work was. Just being cited a few hundred times is typical for any capable research mathematician, and is no indication of notability. Perchloric (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the subject in question has actually been cited a few thousand times.T R 08:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TimothyRias, you are exaggerating. I don't think this author is that notable. At any rate, there is only one academic by that name, and all of the Google Scholar hits are by him (rather than by any namesake). Tkuvho (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Attempt to calibrate notability: I randomly selected 3 decent but not world-beating research universities (Tufts, U Wisconsin Madison, and Univ of S. California), and for each I went to their math dept website and took the first tenured professor in alphabetical order, and did a Google Scholar search. Here is what I found:
Tufts: Bruce Boghosian. At least 3 articles with over 100 citations,at least 10 more with over 50 citations
UWisc, Madison: Sifurd Angenent. At least 8 articles with over 100 citations, at least 5 more with over 50.
USC: Kenneth Alexander. At least 1 article with over 100 citations, a few more with over 50.

I know this is a small sample, but I think it is fair to conclude that having a few papers with 50 to 100 citations is pretty normal for a math professor, and not a sign of notability. Perchloric (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All three persons above would be likely to pass the above average professor test. WP:Prof finds that notability may be established by citations in the scholarly literature to the subject's work and goes into some detail about this in Note 1. If editors wish to change Wikipedia policy they should do so on the policy pages, not here. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Question. Whom exactly is trying to change policy? You did research to try to find a reasonable level for the h-index to establish notability. Perchloric presented a different (and just as reasonable) analysis to support his opinion, but still based on policy. The question trying to be hashed out above is what level of citation is reasonable to justify the person have a wikipedia page. I don't see how his analysis is trying to change policy anymore then your own. Thenub314 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think it is necessary to debate this particular case within the larger context of the field of mathematics (i.e. whether maths people get more or fewer citations, on average, than those in other fields). The >350 citations (please see my analysis above) show that this person's work has been influential in the field. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – It is a close run thing in terms of WP:PROF. In such cases I like to apply the rule of common sense. Wikipedia allows articles on bands that were one hit wonders. It has pages dedicated to a single episode of a single program. If those two kinds of articles are permissible then the lifetime's work of a better than average (although not outstanding) academic ought to be included too. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reject the notability guideline (for reasons that would that too much time and space to write down here.) The article is reliably sourced, neutrally written, and has a decent amount of incoming links which would turn red if this article was to be deleted. Therefore it should in my opinion be kept. —Ruud 17:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* I would be curious to know your reasons for rejecting one of the key policy guidelines. But I would also note it is not reliably sourced. As I write half of the statements in it are unsourced, while much of the rest seem to be to his own works, so primary sources not reliable secondary sources. The other reasons, that it is well written and has a lot of incoming links are not relevant, especially as a lot of the links are from references, many added by M Katz himself when he was an editor here, so a lot less value than links in the article and with COI concerns.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might write an essay on this some time, but not now. One of reasons is that I see the notability guideline mostly as a pragmatic rule that had to prevent Wikipedia from becoming "skewed" in its early days. Wikipedia has now reached a size that would make this no longer and issue and safely allows us to write articles on the most obscure of subjects, as long as those are verifiable. Clearly, all inaccurate or biased statements should be removed from the article. —Ruud 08:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails the notability guidelines. He's no more special than most math profs, and hasn't made a significant contribution to his field that would make him stand out. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I moved several discussions that did not directly concern the outcome of this specific AfD to the talk page for the AfD. But since they do concern methodology for evaluating mathematicians and academics more broadly, they may still be of interest to other AfD participants; if so, please go to the talk page to see them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not convinced of a pass of WP:PROF on the basis of absolute citation counts — yes, it's a lower citation field, but he's had plenty of time in his career to accumulate citations. I would normally find Ruud's argument about incoming links more convincing — perhaps surprisingly since it isn't one of the WP:PROF criteria, but I think that high connectivity is important to the encyclopedia. On the other hand, in order to test where those incoming links were coming from, I chose arbitrarily one of them, Hurwitz quaternion order, and found that the article had been created and edited heavily by Katz, that he was the one who added the citation to his own paper to the article, and that the citation is nowhere used within the text of the article. I don't view adding relevant self-citations to articles as a bad thing (I've done it enough times myself) but their relevance needs to be justified (which it wasn't in this case) and it makes me uncomfortable to then use the existence of such links as a basis of keeping the biography. What eventually did tip me over from delete to keep was to look, not at the citation counts, but at who the top authors in systolic geometry are. It's a little difficult because the search results for "systolic" are dominated by heart research and distributed computing, but with the more mathematical keyword combinations I tried the consistent results were that Gromov was far and away the most heavily cited, but that many of the next most cited papers after his were by Katz. So it seems he really is a leader in this sub-area, and I think it's an important enough sub-area that being a leader in it should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware Katz added some of those links himself. This clearly weakens my argumentation somewhat. —Ruud 09:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that many of the "keep" arguments above are based on ignoring WP policy.
- Ruud says he "rejects the notability guideline", so his contribution is not really relevant.
- FlyByNight also rejects the notability criterion and replaces it with a "better than average (although not outstanding)" criterion. This is not WP policy.
- Agricola44 thinks that 350 citations to all Katz's papers combined makes Katz "influential", but being notable requires more than having has some influence on others in ones professional circle. My small random survey (see above) already gave evidence that hundreds of citations is typical for a tenured math professor at a mid-level research university, so Katz's rather ordinary 350 citations do not establish notability. Perchloric (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have refuted the above claim in my previous comments which, for reasons unclear to me, have been moved to the talk page of this AfD. My view is that Agricola44's findings on this matter are soundly based on policy and precedent. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Help at Larry Guth would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not law and we are not judges. Wikipedia policies are mostly descriptive, not prescriptive. However this is somewhat moot as notability is a guideline, not policy. Now go and write some articles. —Ruud 11:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the deletionists here are currently ghostbusting departed quantities. Input would be appreciated. Tkuvho (talk) 16:48, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terry (Fawlty Towers)

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

This character is non-notable, not being discussed "direclty and in detail" by multiple reliable sources, as stipulated by WP:SIGCOV. The reasoning behind the removal of the PROD-tag is especially flawed: "a simple Google search indicates this to have been a real character and to have been played by that actor" seems to fly against WP:ITEXISTS and WP:GHITS, while, "This article is also linked to by about 20 or 30 other articles, which also speaks against deletion," (technically true, but only because of it being linked to in a navbox) is essentially a WP:POPULARPAGE violation. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 09:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there were only a few characters in the series - maybe merge but I do note the parent article is already 50 kb and could feasible be bigger. Yes we have to find some sources. My "keep" vote is on the premise that they exist. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe provide links to or ISBNs of reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this character? ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 10:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe later. Possibly within seven days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you can't back up your (seemingly random) guess that the subject is notable – ie. that multiple reliable sources discuss Terry the chef directly and in detail – then your !vote is essentially WP:ITSNOTABLE. If I may just quote from that essay: "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable [...] Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability." ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 10:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better than, "It can't be notable if I can't find it in 4 seconds on a Google search"....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thank you for assuming a high level of cluelessness and laziness on my part, but I'm sorry to disappoint you by declaring that I have researched the issue in considerably more depth than a 4-second (or even a 5-second) Google search. For instance, I have examined as many of the Google Scholar hits which my university library online thingy enables me to, and do not find significant coverage. Many articles are actually referring to Terry Jones, basically a search-engine problem!, but most others merely mention Terry in passing, often in simple plot-descriptions, eg. "Terry the chef is rushing off for his latest karate lesson..." Even Fawlty Towers: Fully Booked (considered to be the most comprehensive publication about the sitcom) contains only the barest of references to the character, along the lines of, "Terry the chef has got a 'karate' lesson with a tall blonde Finnish woman."
So your baseless aspersions on my search for sources are incorrect. It would be nice if you retracted them, though I doubt that's even a remote possibility.
I can only re-iterate that if you cannot provide any specific information to substantiate your claim that the subject is notable, then your argument is a textbook one to avoid, and that's all there is to it. ╟─Treasury Tag►Speaker─╢ 11:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, so it took you about 3 minutes and 45 seconds rather than 4 seconds. Well done. I'll wait till I go to the library. Casliber (talk · contribs)
May I ask what, "So it took you about 3 minutes and 45 seconds," actually means? I just clearly explained the research I've done. As an allegedly senior member of the community, I'd have thought you'd at least attempt to behave rather better than this. ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - looks like some books on Fawlty Towers are at the uni library, so I might stop by and pick them up tomorrow. Unless anyone else has them on their shelf and can add anything beforehand. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was 6 days ago, where are all the sources on which your keep vote was premised? I suppose this is why we should probably not vote based on imaginary sources, because it makes you look pretty dumb when the sources turn out to be... well... imaginary. —SW— ^communicate 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) Yes it was. Unfortunately real life intervened on Thursday last and my free time evaporated. Ditto Tuesday (It is only convenient on those two days). I should be able to get there tomorrow, not that I am overly enamoured spending an hour of my life fetching sources from a library for this. Snottywong, tacking on ad hominem aspersions are not a particularly good idea if you want to show folks a mature side of yourself in the future but if it makes you feel better/gets it out of your system right now then good luck with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments on the talkpage when I removed the WP:PROD tag. I acknowledge the nominator's concerns, but as I say on the talkpage, at worst why not just merge and redirect to Fawlty_Towers#Other_regular_characters_and_themes? I don't involve myself much with these TV show type articles, so don't know the usual treatment of such things (and I'm happy to say he's not a key character), but for heaven's sake compared to many other junk articles around, it's this sort of radical deletionism that's driving away many contributors from WP. Why bother deleting when it's so simple just to make it a redirect? Or do you want to delete that section out of the Fawlty Towers article as well 'for lack of sources'? Give me a break. --jjron (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please substantiate the 'keep' part of your !vote by listing a number of reliable sources which cover Terry directly and in detail, as per WP:ITSNOTABLE? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 13:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete (with a WP:HEY standard of someone actually coming up with sources instead of just asserting them). I've made an effort to look for sources but I haven't been able to find anything. I'm not hopeful either, since whilst I'm a fairly big fan of Fawlty Towers, I had to look up who he was and I'm fairly sure he only had 20 or 30 lines in the entire run. I'm not expecting more than a footnote in "Cockneys in 1970s British Television". Bob House 884 (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, no content except an OR character description. Nothing of value in this article; nothing even worth merging. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It's useless to assert without proof that there must be sources out there somewhere, particularly when others have looked and found nothing. This article fails WP:N and WP:V because it is totally unsourced and therefore contains no preservable content. Reyk _YO! 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional character that does not meet the general notability guideline. Additionally, the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context and lacks reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume any kind of notability. With no verifiability, the article is original research and an unneeded content fork. Jfgslo (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 5 years and it's still an unsourced stubby article consisting of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and original research (WP:OR). Nothing that couldn't fit in a character list like Fawlty_Towers#Characters already accomplishes. Clear-cut decision. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRUFT with no outside notability. Qworty (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fawlty_Towers#Characters. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks OK to me. Flying Fische (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOREASON. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 19:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thx. I have my reasons: Important character in an important TV show thing. Flying Fische (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the article meets our general notability guideline, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, and if so, how? ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, basically. that's why I voted keep? Flying Fische (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat my second question: ...and if so how? If you do not want your !vote to be ignored by the administrator who closes this discussion, you are required to explain your position. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could say the same thing about the nomination? Why would my vote count and not yours? That's disenfranchisement. Flying Fische (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 20:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to read up on WP:NOTVOTE Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRUFT Carl Sixsmith (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; second choice merge. TreasuryTag is perseverating again, with his argumentative responses to every comment made. He really should try to keep away from the XfD pages for awhile for his own well-being. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOREASON at best, very nearly at WP:ADHOM level. I should also point out for those who haven't observed this obvious fact that the allegation that I am providing "argumentative responses to every comment made" is simply untrue. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 17:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've literally responded argumentatively to every Keep comment made. I admit you haven't argued with the Delete comments. Honestly, I seriously question your sense of perspective. To avoid monopolizing the discussion, I will now leave this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the keep !votes have been "Yes we have to find some sources. My "keep" vote is on the premise that they exist.", "Google search shows many sources that indicate this to have been a real character", "seems OK to me" and "Keep; second choice merge" Personally I think it might be best just to have some faith in the closing admin. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barring significant coverage in their own right, I'd rather minor characters like this were just mentioned/described on the show's article, if at all. 66.220.144.74 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Per Newyorkbrad above. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or delete without prejudice against recreation when the main article's state makes it reasonable to apply WP:Summary style in this way. With the poor content in this article this is currently not the case, and there is no other reason to cover the main character separately from the series. Maybe one could sort of establish "independent" notability, but I would consider that pointy as it would be in support of totally unnecessary bad article organisation at this point. Hans Adler 19:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would establishing notability be disruptive? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it's not even clear how notability of the character can be distinguished from notability of the series, I would consider it to be wikilawyering. And it would just be for the purpose of having another unpromising stub lying around in article space. We are writing an encyclopedia. We are not stamp collectors who are trying to tick off as many potential article titles as possible in a catalogue. This material would make sense in the main article or in a list of Fawlty Towers characters, but the topic cannot sustain a reasonably deep article on its own and fortunately we don't have to live with the problem as there are better alternatives. (Of course I am assuming that there aren't several books that have a chapter each on the character.) Hans Adler 19:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly possible that any particular fictional character might be notable independently of the creative work they're found in. Many are -- this one probably is not, at least at present. But I don't see "bad article organisation" as a weighty argument for or against. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: Per Newyorkbrad and Flying Fische above. R. Baley (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty simple decision to be made here. Do reliable sources exist? No? Ok, then delete. Wow, is that all there is to it? Yup. That's amazing. —SW— ^chat 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or possibly merge) Significant character in major series is sufficient. "direclty and in detail" are not exact terms, and there is I think no consensus to apply them strictly in this area. In any case, there is no possible justification against merging, since the sources for the character are certainly good enough for WP:V. . I note that many comments above are rather weekly provided with rationales, and to oppose keep comments on that basis is a little absurd. I take a comment on either side without rationale to mean, broadly, I agree with the preceding arguments for this point of view. As we don't vote in any exact numerical sense, this doesn't definitively determine the issue, but we do decide on how literally to apply guidelines on general consensus, not admin whim, and such a comment at least partially indicates consensus. Otherwise, you know, I could wait out debates like this where i have an opinion and instead write a closing explaining why all the arguments on one side were weak--whichever side it was I personally supported. I'm not saying any actual admin does thing this cynically at present, because all of us in general do pay some respect at least to consensus. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear, I have no prejudice against a merge. The question here is 'should Terry the chef, a bit character from Fawlty Towers, have his own article?', and I don't think he should. The secondary question, 'should he be mentioned on the list of Fawlty Towers characters?' is so obvious that I didn't bother to answer it, whether this is done by a strict 'merge' or new text is pretty much a non-issue, especially seeing as the main article already appears to contain more information than the article we're considering merging. Bob House 884 (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. There's plenty of information about him in other articles. --Anthem of joy (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on civility RE: Treasury Tag I find TreasuryTag's comments in this AFD rather curt, unfriendly, rude and even uncivil. I see this is the case a couple of times for this AFD. Asking one user for ISBN numbers, telling another that they must answer his/her questioning otherwise their vote won't be counted by the closing administrator. Chasing one editor (diff link) across Wikipedia to berate them with a hostile 'Welcome to Wikipedia' message instead of discussing the issue here where it arose.

Also Treasury Tag's Wikilawyering is almost unbearable. Rather than communicating in English he or she links to a section of one article. What's worse is the article that he or she points to is an essay (not necessarily a Wikipedia policy) like WP:ITSNOTABLE, and WP:NOREASON. I don't think this sort of behaviour is good for Wikipedia, it doesn’t move us forward, it only antagonises people. TehGrauniad (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aah yes. What to do. Well, you can ask him nicely to desist from what you see as problem behaviour, and then maybe take a look at his talk page history to see if you're the second or subsequent person to ask him something along these lines, and if you think the behaviour is continuing, then there is a process for this, but yes, getting in the Last Word is...erm....not conducive to constructive dialogue. And it has been discussed before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: will try to get to the library now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fawlty_Towers#Other_regular_characters_and_themes, without deleting the history. There's really no reason to ever delete an article like this when there is a clearly notable target. I would say merge, but it appears the content already is present at that article. Redirect, and if additional sources emerge, break it back out. No admin tools needed here at all. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:23, 26 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. Der yck C. 19:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stampack

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

Fails WP:N. No sources can be located to establish this topic's notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks 3rd party references to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 21:30, 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Zhongjun Cao

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

previous AfD is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Zhongjun Cao. now that time has passed since his death I see no long standing notability as per WP:EVENT and WP:EFFECT. people get murdered for supposed "racial" reasons all the time. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:N/CA. WWGB (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:N/CA and the policy it is based on, WP:NOTNEWS. Crime has had no long-term impact, and there's no real evidence that the motive for murder was unusual. --Anthem of joy (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor guy. While I have the utmost sympathy, I see no indication that he meets Wikipedia Notability guidelines (WP:NOTNEWS). Qrsdogg (talk) 22:40, 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 redirect to Hikita Bungoro. Non-admin closure. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toyogoro

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

Toyogoro was another name for Hikita Bungoro. Since this article is an unsourced stub, I believe it should be deleted. JReyer (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By the nominator's own description, a redirect would be preferable to deletion. — C M B J 09:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 11:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hikita Bungoro. Both articles apparently created simultaneously in good faith back in 2006, presumably creator wasn't aware of redirects. I can't see anything worth merging as they seem to cover the same facts, just worded differently. --Beloved Freak 11:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Belovedfreak, that was my thought when I came here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems like a no-brainer. Astudent0 (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. We should also check to make sure target article isn't a copyvio as the article creator was known for creating those (well over 700 of them, in fact). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:12, 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 Userfy to User:Warracres. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warr acres

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

Non-notable band. Contributor might be affiliated with the organization. Moray An Par (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be a CSD already? JohnHWiki (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. New user article. User should not be bitten. --Djc wi (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, no redirects Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 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]

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 [25] 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 keep, as notability of subject has been established by this discussion. The discussion below suggests that further sourcing of the article may be necessary, but I won't make it part of the closing condition. Der yck C. 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Santos

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this voice actor. The name is sufficiently common (e.g, the significantly more notable computational linguist of the same name), however, that there's a chance I've missed something. Long-term unreferenced BLP. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Not a hoax, www.imbd.com, voicechasers.com, but unsure if there is enough information for an article. It looks like most her significant voice work is pre-internet. I had a little bit of luck searching spanish pages for "Diana Santos actriz de voz", such as this article that mentions she did the voice of Takeshi in Miss Comet. [26] Someone who can read Spanish might try that search, as well as "Diana Santos" and the Spanish names of films she was in and parts she played to find more information. Denaar (talk) 05:29, 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, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although a bit weak. Just the first page of results of a search for "Diana Santos" doblaje is enough to convince me that she is very well regarded in the dubbing community, and that her career spans 50+ years in major movies and series. The issue here is that, at least in Mexico, voice actors barely get any recognition at all, so you might as well have heard her voice your whole life but never knew who she actually was. Here are some links from that search, not the best sources ever, but they are mostly of an archiving nature (as opposed to advertising) 1 2 3 - frankieMR (talk) 00:11, 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, Sandstein 05:27, 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 keep. General consensus leans towards keep and nominator wishes to withdraw the deletion nomination. Der yck C. 19:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woo Lam 92 (protocol)

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

It is an insecure, inefficient, and flawed-by-design cryptographic protocol whose only notability is its insecurity. (Plus, even the description of the protocol on this page is erroneous.) Nageh (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Afterthought: I think I need to retract my AfD vote. The issue I was trying to bring up was that there are tons of flawed authentication protocol designs, and IMO most of them are hardly notable. Protocols like Needham-Schroeder and Otway-Rees are way more notable, were used in practice, provide the basis for many other similar protocols, but do have design flaws as well, just as earlier versions of Kerberos. On the other hand, we do have articles on protocols that are equally non-notable as Woo-Lam, and are present simply because Bruce Schneier chose to cover them in his Applied Cryptography book. Sigh, even Woo-Lam is covered in his book, so I guess I'm at loss. :/ Nageh (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it is notable for its insecurity, then it's notable. The others are not arguments for deletion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I tend to forget that there is no WP:COMMONSENSE on Wikipedia. How about this: The protocol is not used at all in practice, never was, is not mentioned in as good as all established reference books on the subject (entity authentication/identification protocols), and just is not notable at all. What I was trying to say was that its insecurity is its most notable (but IMO still not notable enough) aspect. (PS: Don't take my rant too personal.) Nageh (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated by Sergeant Cribb, if this protocol's lack of safety is the reason for its notability, then it does meet our notability guidelines. However, a Google search yields no reference about it that can be used to demonstrate notability, regardless of whether it's notable for the wrong reasons. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote this page, because woo Lam protocol is shown in university as a basic model for mutual authentication using a KDC. and i noticed with a short search that there is close to nothing explaining the protocol. part of the only locations where it is mentioned are in academic web sites where this is being brought as a simple example, woo lam is usually used as a stater subject before explaining Kerberos to students. i agree that it might not be efficient or secure as others out there, but for the same reason they still hold on to it in the academia, i think it should stay. would be glad to get comments regarding any errors i might have done. i haven't had time to finish it (i just opened it a few hours ago - you guys are quick) but i'll be glad to fix it up more if it wont be deleted. (mike) 10:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That the protocol can or can't be used in real life for whatever reason will be of no concern in this discussion. If we can find evidence that it is indeed shown in university textbooks (and I mean more than just the teacher's handouts), that might be just what it takes to make it meet our notability guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP:~~(duplicate vote) I have found several notable places (thanks to Prof' gudes) discussing the woo lam protocol
1) Cryptography and Network Security. (p 387) by William Stallings
2)Woo, T., and Lam, S."'Authentication' Revisited." Computer, April 1992.
ACM Digital library ^[1] Volume 25 Issue 3, March 1992
3) Woo, T., and Lam, S."Authentication for Distributed Systems."Computer, January 1992.
Mike2learn (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 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, Sandstein 05:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Stallings uses the two Woo-Lam protocols/papers to show that "protocols that appeared secure were revised after additional analysis. These examples highlight the difficulty of getting things right in the area of authentication." Meh, no real importance, just an example. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Needham's "Authentication revisited" paper, which has 200+ citations in GS, Woo & Lam's paper with the same title has only 11. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think importance is in the context you place it in. It is notable, as it is used in the academia (As shown in the references above) and is a good example of the evolution of authentication protocols. regarding the quote " These examples highlight..." from stallings book , he also says "SHA and Whirlpool are examples of these two approaches" (pg 353) being an example does not take away notability or importance. Stalling shows full description of both 92a and 92b protocol with detailed description. Mike2learn (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article needs more work to pass NPOV, even for the latter protocol [27] [28], however GNG seems satisfied. It would probably be easier for the reader if all the more obscure symmetric key authentication protocols were on one page, like in that book, but Wikipedia is seldom targeted at satisfying the reader, because of who writes it. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep If indeed covered in Schneier's Applied Cryptography (I haven't checked) that would be enough to establish independent notability. —Ruud 11:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's covered in 3+ textbooks: Schneier, Stallings, and the authentication one linked by me above. It's also covered in a couple more where only the clearly flawed protocol is given [29] [30]. It's the low citation count for the "corrected" protocol(s) that makes this a questionable topic by itself; I put corrected in quotes because it still relies on the sender being able to detect replays of its own messages. [31] Tijfo098 (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion and comment. The references provided by Tijfo098 describe quite a different protocol than the ones described in the article. In particular, the former are symmetric-key protocols while the latter rely on public-key cryptography. This is curious insofar as we are now at four different protocols described as Woo-Lam authentication protocols by different sources. All of them are border-case in notability, IMHO. As sort of a compromise I suggest the following:
- The article is renamed Woo–Lam (protocol) and describes both the two symmetric-key variants (the broken one and the less broken one) and the two public-key protocols (again the totally broken one and the less broken one).
- It does away with naming the protocol Woo-Lam 92 because that is original research, and in fact only the reference was entitled [Woo-Lam 92] in Stalling's book.
- Mike2learn, would you please correct the protocol description so it does not state rubbish like "public-key encryption with a private key" (what?) or "signing with the public key" (what the...?). In particular, there is no need to indicate which of public or private key is to be used for public-key encryption or signing, respectively. You may also add some notes about the insecurity of the protocol and that it serves as an example in this regard. Finally, note that neither the authors' homepages nor their original research papers are suitable secondary sources to establish notability. While you may cite the papers you should reference Stalling's book as a reliable secondary source on the protocol in the article.

Cheers, Nageh (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ Authentication Revisited. 25 (3). March 1992 http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=J169&picked=prox&cfid=21318459&cftoken=81654866. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 05:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moari gods

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

Content duplicates Family tree of the Māori gods. Unreferenced, appears to be a test page. 78.26 (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A10 (a duplicate of Family tree of the Māori gods. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:10, 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 unanimous delete. Der yck C. 19:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Shekhar Osmania University

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

No sources, article name needs to be changed. First name should probably be Shekhar Vedulla. Very confusing article. No evidence of notability presented. 78.26 (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not about a university, but an individual professor, with no evidence of notability. Chester Markel (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just an online resume. For what it's worth, the American Biographical Institute, from which he "won" his "Man of the Year" award, is "a paid-inclusion biographical reference directory publisher . . . Its awards are frequently denounced as scams by politicians,[2][3] journalists,[4][5] and others." Glenfarclas (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo of individual. No attempt has been made to show why individual meets WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 10:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Puffed CV from a SPA account having no sources. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 20:45, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Pelletier

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

Filmmaker has only completed a fifteen-minute short. Fails WP:ARTIST. The Interior (Talk) 02:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm going to argue that he meets WP:ARTIST criterion 4(c) by winning the film festival awards. I also think the AfD nomination is premature; I'd rather see this article expanded than removed right now. If we go a couple of weeks or months and can't get beyond the current content—and the current small number of secondary sources—then I think another AfD would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This individual is 20 years old, and at the very beginning of his career. I have assumed that the content on the page is probably the extent of his achievements so far. Please note that the Arizona Film and Media Expo [32] is not an established film festival. The Interior (Talk) 03:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 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) 00:05, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per award and publicity in WP:RS in references. Chester Markel (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may still be a kid, but it looks like he has receive non-trivial coverage and won some decent awards. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:34, 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) 05:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hager & The Captain Legendary Band

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

Does not meet WP:BAND, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Claim of award as "best live band" is not referenced making judging the notability of that difficult. In the end an unsigned band is going to have a difficult time meeting WP:BAND without some good media coverage. The only references provided are self published or to a music sales site. RadioFan (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 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, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only references are youtube/self-published websites. Chester Markel (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced claim to an award is the only claim to notability. Lots of Ghits but primary sources, social network sites, and directory listings are not WP:RS. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gigmaven

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:WEB and WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 6 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, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References indicate that they've gotten publicity in some sources which I credit with a reasonable degree of reliability for the purpose. Chester Markel (talk) 04:40, 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 Super Technologies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Phone Line

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

Just one service from a specific phone company - I see no notability here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 6 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, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Technologies. Written as an advertisement, without distinct notability. Chester Markel (talk) 04:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure). maucho eagle _(c) 00:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Kay

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is: Promotional, Stub, Mainly from primary sources Eftertanke (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like Kip Kay's videos, and am a subscriber. All the same I have to be objective and say that most of the information in this article came from primary sources and this article looks promotional or fan-made to me. Eftertanke (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in WP:RS, noted in references section. Chester Markel (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information in this article is verifiable/expandable by using reliable secondary sources. Kip Kay seems to be an important internet personality. The article has potential.Stub? - not a reason for deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's important to note, if every "important" YouTuber were given a four sentence long article, WP would become quite a mess. Eftertanke (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works of this YouTuber were noted by multiple reliable sources and that's important for this project. Wikipedia has a lot of short articles, people here call them stubs. They are entirely legitimate, as far as I know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significance as a (very) well-known internet publisher subtantiated by references from reliable sources.Opbeith (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I first came across this article, it was in this shape, with blogs being the only sources. Although I felt it was not quite a speedy candidate, I decided to leave the speedy deletion tag in place and leave a response to the hangon rationale on the talk page. But my concerns have clearly been addressed after that, even if not by the people who replied to be. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. exactly per Blanchardb with the same reaction. In spite of the dead WSJ link which was probably good at the time, dedicated articles in other important newspapers assert notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that were used prior May 2011 were perhaps not good enough for a keep, but the articles which have been recently are fit to be considered reliable? Can it be confirmed that LA Times Blog, Central Florida News 13, and VideoMaker Magazine are important newspapers? I have very little confidence "important newspapers" is the best description of those sources. black widowh ex Talk 22:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a guideline for that too, but I shouldn't worry, as I !voted 'keep', and it looks very much as if that will be the consensus here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KipKay has almost million YouTube subscribers, his videos have racked up more than 235 million views on YouTube [33] and his popularity was noted by multiple independent and reliable sources. I think this topic has potential to develop into something that says more about the world we live in. It is an interesting piece of information that enriches our coverage of the Internet pop culture. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I did find an online NY Times article on Kip Kedersha. I was going to demur on the Youtube count thing, but the source I found has a bias. black widowh ex Talk 03:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have made it more clear that I found two articles. Yes, you found the NY Times article. The other article is from CNS News and it is this one. It says that the Youtube had frozen the count for a video that went "viral". Some web developers may consider web counters amateurish, so I am not exactly sure why a Youtube counter would be used as evidence. black widowh ex Talk 21:26, 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) 05:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culturalism

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

Essay that should only be a dicdef. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's an article to be written about this ideology. However, as it stands it is a very poor article. No references, and a fair bit of what may be OR and POV. But I'd give it a chance to prove itself before deleting. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If no supporting references can be found. The concept is valid, but is the terminology valid? It seems like a Neologism when used this way. It looks like a similar article for "monoculturalism" was created and merged into the multiculturalism article, that term seems to be more valid. Denaar (talk) 06:09, 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, 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} 03:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not supported by references. Chester Markel (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an original essay, and the content itself is questionable (for example, the Tea Party is portrayed as a political party, and as "culturalist" when its main focus is on economic concerns). Kansan (talk) 15:36, 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 Astrium. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tesat-Spacecom

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

Contested prod Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is currently no deletion rationale and therefore nothing to discuss. On what grounds do you propose deletion? RichardOSmith (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to the parent company Astrium. [34] I assume the nomination was based on notability, and that's a fair argument; although there are quite a few hits at Google News most are passing mentions rather than in-depth significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 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) 00:04, 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} 03:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Astrium per MelanieN. Chester Markel (talk) 05:08, 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 soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promo (Flight Only)

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

Poorly sourced article on rare promotional CD. Originally, this article was about one song on the disc. As sources were insufficient for that, it was changed to its current focus. Neither one has significant coverage in independent sources (see article talk page for specific problems with the sources. Not notable as a song or a CD, per WP:NSONG/WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might take a while, but me, and/or other users can probably find reliable sources. Plus, this item is very much in demand in the fan community, and very much speculated about. Having info here could help interested fans, like me. AttilaBrady (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You have a week to 10 days or so to find those reliable sources. Without them, the recording is not notable and the article will, most likely, be deleted. Prior to that, you might ask to have the article userfied. That would result in it being moved to a subpage of your user page where you can continue to work on it, without it being "live" on Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anyone looking for sources on this recording should note that, AFAICT, the title of this article is not the title of the recording (which does not seem to have a title). The song titles ~~and executives in the back story~~ might be your best bets. That one of the songs was a significant single, another was later released and the third is also the name of a blockbuster movie that Jackson had some ties to makes this a tough search. All I've been able to come up with are the story currently (incorrectly) cited as being from "oneindia Entertainment", copies of it, variants of it, forum postings based on it, etc. along with a bumper crop of articles that are tangentially related to this (several of which are currently cited in the article being discussed here). Good luck! (Edited above: The executives I mentioned seem to be named in the later variations of this story. Searching for them might be misdirecting.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 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) 00:04, 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} 03:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Album fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. The sources consist of an editor remembering a quote of someone's opinion in an eBay auction that is no longer searchable, a dead link and the rest are about the songs and not the album itself. Aspects (talk) 03:55, 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) 05:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Phrase That Pays

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

Singles generally do not meet WP:N, no mention of notability no references. A Previous AfD seems to have passed because everyone thought it was an album, Article says it is about single no mention of hitting any charts. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not supported by references. Chester Markel (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Almost Here (The Academy Is... album). The song is obviously not notable, and per WP:NSONG: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Also, the first two Keep !votes in the previous AfD were frivolous ("Song is on iTunes! It has a music video" -- call me when a reliable source decides to care), and the third, as the nom points out, seems to have thought it was an album. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no charting and fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 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) 05:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Records

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

No indication of notability, importance; no sources; no bands signed to the label with articles Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says "record company created around 1995" even the date is not certain. No notability of the record shown.-- CrossTempleJay talk 19:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll have to guess that no one has actually done a proper search on this record label. Sometimes dates are debatable. Just 'cause there is no wiki article does not mean this article is also not notable. A more proper name for the article would be Disques Bernie. The record label has released several albums per Library and Archives Canada: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41] (not all releases listed). A search of the yankee WorldCat database (as Disques Bernie) yeilds: [42], [43]. The artilce needs TLC not deletion. Argolin (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So this record company released a number of non-notable albums. What makes this company notable? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:10, 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Widely ignored by reliable sources. Chester Markel (talk) 05:10, 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karin and Mirjam van Breeschooten

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you and your twin sister notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
Redirect No significant coverage found. Epbr123 (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 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. NOTE: This AFD was relisted in part because concerns had been raised about the number of Playmates listed simultaneously. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [44]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:20, 14 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 02:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite and Monty. As a second choice, redirect per Hullaballoo. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, topic-banned nominator. Chester Markel (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hullaballoo. The procedural keep idea has some merit as a form of troutslap to the nom, but even so, nominating an article for deletion is only a violation of his topic ban on editing BLPs in a pretty technical sense. Since the article is here, and the nomination was not flagrant, it may as well be dealt with. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1989. That magazine's publisher does not have the authority to make their models notable by Wikipedia standards just by giving them some made-up title or featuring them in a nude photo with a staple through their middle. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Monty and Carrite, falls into category of those recently closed Keep by spartaz, without prejudice to renom.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD differs from those closed by Spartaz; here there is significant discussion on the substance and no challenge to the claim that an independent article is not justified. We're not going to get a consistent set of outcomes here; other admins closed similar dissussions differently; let's just deal with the substantive issue. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 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 2011 military intervention in Libya. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tajoura airstrike

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

Content fork from 2011 military intervention in Libya. Scant news coverage; does not merit its own article. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a notable strike caried out by allied forces. The death of 40 people in one go is notbale. Chesdovi (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete Although the incident is notable given that 40 people, which were confirmed by the Vatican, died in the air-strike, there is not much information on the incident itself to merrit an article of it's own. And, as it is, it's just a fork from the 2011 military intervention article. If more information or an investigation on the incident surfaces than yes there would be a need for the article. But for now keep it along with the main article. EkoGraf (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per gng Pass a Method talk 15:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - It is verified that the event has occurred, but given lack of substantial coverage, the content should be merged into 2011 military intervention in Libya, with referenced material being kept, and the page replaced with a redirect. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. Subject lacks "significant independent coverage" in WP:RS under the GNG, but should be covered in the main article IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 09:22, 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, Baseball Watcher 02:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage in WP:RS not sufficient for a standalone article. Chester Markel (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much time have you speant researching it before you come to this conslusion. How comes the Qana airstike is so comprhensive? Chesdovi (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a legitimate argument. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for research, just click on any of the light blue links up top. You'll find that there is virtually no coverage of this incident, even with the vague title that it has. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the NATO bomb error? Chesdovi (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely different airstrike. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I am asking if that strike is notable enough for its own page. I'm itching to make a page on an airstrike. Chesdovi (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a variety of sources that address the strike in depth, then go ahead. But please try to keep the discussion here on-topic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:54, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dearly Departed

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

Non-notable band lacking reliable sources » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 03:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —» Swpb^{τ • ¢} 03:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hate common terms like this; of the millions of hits, all I've seen are people using the term to describe a lost loved one. I have yet to see even a passing mention of the band. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #1, with significant coverage in Newsday. I've added five citations. The review from Scene Point Blank also represents some third-party coverage; from what I can tell, it's a legit music magazine, neither a single person's blog, nor a site of user-generated content. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:07, 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) 01:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik. Chester Markel (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Paul.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like it meets the General Notability Guideline. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:21, 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) 05:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

West Jerusalem

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

This page is against the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages for several reasons. There is one definite redlinkable article (although it is not redlinked) and one possible. However, it does not look like these articles are being worked on so this is just an unneeded placeholder that does not direct the reader to intended content. Furthermore, it goes into more detail than is needed to disambiguate the subjects (even though the subjects are directed to the same article), and the on top of that there is controversy over its accuracy. "Jerusalem of the West" might be an alright See also since there could possibly be some confusion and it is certainly related wording wise. "East Jerusalem" is the exact opposite wording wise but is related subject wise if looking at similarities of the legal issues. Axe tis disambig and bring it back when there are two articles (even then questionable) written that needs a disambig. I can see the use of this disambig in the future but it is nothing but trouble now. Cptnono ([[User talk:

Also MOS wise, there should not be multiple links in the same line. Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub article on the part of Jerusalem that came under Israeli rule in 1948, or else redirect to Jerusalem, as the situation was before August 2007. --Lambiam 01:58, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no deletion is required. Discussion of the fate of the page in terms of redirection or retention may be effectuated on the talk page. Chester Markel (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be a good stub or disambiguation page. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a strong argument for separating out discussion of West Jerusalem from the main Jerusalem article. Many more states recognise the Israeli claim to that part of the city than to the East but some do not, being able to discuss the West separately would prove useful. Similarly being able to have an article which explains what buildings are there would be useful. While Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the President of the United States has today suggested that a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be based on the pre-67 borders. An article documenting which parts of Jerusalem would fall within those borders woudl be informative.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:56, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TV1

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 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) 01:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this is an indiscriminate collection of information. --Anthem of joy (talk) 21:23, 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) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by 7Two

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 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) 01:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You might wanna nominate all these others as well:

- Yk³ talk · contrib 04:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is just a cut-and-paste of the 7Two#Programming section. redundant - Peripitus (Talk) 11:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 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) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by The Comedy Channel

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 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) 01:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a list of programmes, and unlike say "List of programs produced by ....." of no particular value in understanding the Channel's contribution or programming doctrine. And not sourced. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:51, 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) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Fox8

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 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) 01:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced directory of information from the Fox8 website that is, or should be wholly, in the Fox8 article - Peripitus (Talk) 01:35, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Playhouse Disney Australia

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:44, 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) 01:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is an unreferenced copy of part of the Playhouse Disney (Australia and New Zealand) article. Redundant and unneccesary - Peripitus (Talk) 01:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a list of programs from a very minor channel in Australia, and is not only unreferenced but difficult to independently reference from reliable sources, if not impossible. Orderinchaos 22:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the information could be easily included in the parent article I don't see the need for an article here. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:09, 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) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Australia

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 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) 01:30, 18 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) 01:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shadowjams has covered it well - Peripitus (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) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network Australia

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 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) 01:30, 18 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) 01:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shadowjams has covered it well - Peripitus (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) 05:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel Australia

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 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) 01:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicate of information that is (or is mostly) at Disney_Channel_Australia#Shows. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 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. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Network Ten

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you've opened a can of worms here. Delete - we're writing an encyclopaedia not a tv guide and this strays too far on the wrong side. I see that every reference as well goes to a self-described blog - Peripitus (Talk) 23:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is a useful and helpful contribution to Wikipedia. I see no reason to delete it. Jackthart (talk) 18:08, 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) 01:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Peripitus. No reliable, independent sourcing for this article which is likely to be very "point in time" due to frequent additions and cancellations of shows on what is one of Australia's five major channels/networks. Orderinchaos 22:23, 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) 23:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by GEM

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 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) 01:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Shadowjams here. Any information needed can be in GEM (Australian TV channel) where some of it is already. Not at all sure why we need this article - Peripitus (Talk) 01:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Peripitus. Orderinchaos 22:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the information could be easily included in the parent article I don't see the need for an article here. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:06, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by GO!

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

This is classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (listed below). I'm partially persuaded by previous arguments listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks, in which it was argued that having these lists kept long lists of programs out of articles about the networks and cable channels themselves. If these were short lists, it would be less of a problem, but they are not. I'm also partially motivated by the potential loss of programs-by-network lists like List of programs broadcast by the DuMont Television Network, which would not have been possible to compile just ten years ago. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you high? Your link is from 2006. That was half a decade ago (about the same time you ran for adminship... perhaps if there were reelections...). These are TV LISTINGS AND NOTHING ELSE. This is so outside of policy I question your competence for even suggesting keep. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not high, just because I don't share your opinion. I don't think you appear to know what a "TV listing" is. A television listing tells you what's on TV, not what programs aired on which television networks and cable channels. You... you don't appear to know what you've nominated for deletion. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:52, 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) 01:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is an unsourced copy of information that is in Go! (Australian TV channel) - redundant to the main article and this list is unlikely to grow large enough to need a separate article for a long time - Peripitus (Talk) 10:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Peripitus - also too changeable and difficult to verify from reliable sources. Orderinchaos 22:11, 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) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steph Watts

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

This stub seems to have been created for promotional purposes, and I can't find any other sources that cover Mr. Watts in detail other than the one in the article. The source in the article is from a media magazine, and it seems of limited use as a source as the entire magazine is aimed at promotion. The creator also appears to have a conflict of interest. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the result of this discussion is delete, then I would also recommend that the article be create protected, as it has been deleted three times already since April 30th. I think we should leave some time for Mr. Watts to become more notable before we allow his article to be created again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This GNews hit looks independent, reliable and arguably notable - though also arguably not in the context of a BLP article. And the same argument might be made for a couple of the other GNews hits. The subject does rather seem to get involved with his stories. PWilkinson (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-found! I agree that there is significant coverage of Watts in this source, and it looks like it could contribute as evidence of notability. Also, I'm becoming a little concerned that I might have maligned the Cision Navigator source. I checked out the author of that source, and she appears to be a fairly well-respected writer. What do others think about the reliability of Cision Navigator? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found another source from TVNewser. This one is also about the Drew Peterson case. It looks like Watts is notable enough for his role in this case, but this is just for one event, so adding him to the Drew Peterson article may be more appropriate. Having said that, there is also the matter of the Cision Navigator source, which I am still undecided on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - N.b. The Cision Navigator source I mentioned is here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Steph Watts should not be deleted. If there is anyway to bring back the old Wikipedia article that has been around for years, before the change, I would appreciate it. If this one can't stay of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garland3688 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 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) 01:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new references located in discussion above. Chester Markel (talk) 05:16, 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) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Palmisano

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player, who, as far as I can conjecture, is no longer playing professionally. This individual never played above the mid-minors and spent most of his career in the lower minors/independent ball. The majority of the references, if not all, are WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Never even made AAA, so far below the threshold for WP:ATHLETE and I am not seeing any evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Actually, the older AfD has some sources of coverage. But I am no longer convinced that those alone are quite enough under current notability standards. Rlendog (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)~~ :*I should also point out that I don't regard the Milwaukee Journal article as trivial, just inadequate on its own or with the other non-independent or trivial sources. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, HBWS may be right. I can't see the BA coverage, but if not trivial it is certainly not local. So this may be appropriate to keep. But given his skimpy record, I'm not certain it's necessary. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article has substantial coverage of Palmisano, and there's this article, which may be the same one mentioned in the first AfD (I haven't checked). However, the second one could be interpreted to be local coverage, and I didn't find anything else in Google News Archives that would contribute to a GNG pass. I think this falls just short of GNG, though I'd be inclined to reconsider if more coverage of him is found. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I knew this name sounded familiar, I was the nominator of the first AfD. Delete for all the reasons I said then and now. He's not a notable figure, despite routine regional coverage, which did not persist. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, still just as notable as he was the last time he was nominated. In what way is the Baseball America coverage mentioned "local"? They're a national publication, probably THE premier national source on minor league baseball. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So he was "Baseball America's Short-Season All-Star, Most Valuable Player and an All-Star at catcher.". That doesn't make him notable. Frankly, Baseball America talks about a lot of prospects that don't end up being notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the GNG the fact that Baseball America and other media outlets talk about players like Palmisano DOES make them notable. He was a significant prospect who received a full scouting writeup in several years' worth of BA's annual books. That's significant independent coverage. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A few mentions in one well-known minor league periodical still is not "significant." Alex (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, I wasn't speaking about their magazine, although he undoubtedly received coverage in that as well. Rather, I was speaking about their annual prospect guide, which is an actual printed book. For example, here is the info for their 2011 edition, ISBN 1932391347, which is 512 pages in length. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:02, 19 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) 01:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Since this survived a previous AFD with a clean keep, a little more participation would be helpful in determining if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find the coverage in reliable sources to be significant. See also the rationales cited by participants in the first AFD discussion. Chester Markel (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has some local coverage and the article is well-maintained, I'm not convinced that he is notable enough to have an article despite the references. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so fast: according to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Baseball, playing so much as a single game for any Major League Baseball team indicates notability. Per Lou_Palmisano#Houston_Astros, he has been involved with Major League Baseball teams, which seems to fall within this standard. Chester Markel (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not remotely. Palmisano has never played a major league game with the Houston Astros or any other team. Alex (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question is whether being drafted by a major league team, participating in training with them, and being traded by them, in combination with the number of references available, pushes this article over the notability threshold. I believe that it does. Chester Markel (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WPBB/N which clearly states that a player must have played in the major league level and not merely associated with a major league team by playing on one of its minor league teams. Does not meet WP:GNG, as it does not have significant coverage in multiple sources. There was talk of mention in multiple publications by Baseball America, but "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The coverage in the other sources are predominantly WP:ROUTINE coverage that only briefly mention Palmisano. Overall, there is a lack of in-depth coverage in multiple sources to demonstrate notability of a WP:Run-of-the-mill minor league player. —Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources given are all either local to the team for which he was playing or from MLB.com or its affiliates (OurSportsCentral is affiliated with MiLB and is thus not an independent source). As for the coverage by Baseball America, there's no evidence it's beyond routine coverage, why isn't it cited in the article? Being MVP of a Rookie league does not necessarily make one notable. -Dewelar (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't cited in the article because the people who were !voting for deletion last time were apparently too lazy to add them to the article following the conclusion of the AFD. Fortunately, an individual's notability is a function only of available coverage, and not the presence of that coverage within the article. To quote from the GNG: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation." -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The previous voters for keep could have added the sources as well :-) I've added Template:Notability tag to the article as a reminder that sources need to be added if this article manages to survive. —Bagumba (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems the previous deletion discussion was closed by Wikipedia:Non-admin closure as a KEEP, meeting WP:GNG. However, new to this 2nd AfD are claims that the sources are WP:ROUTINE and do not meet WP:GNG expectation of multiple sources of significant coverage. —Bagumba (talk) 16:33, 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) 05:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Steal

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. No relevant GNews or GBooks hit with any substantive bio content. Claimed "NightMoves Award" is by prior consensus insignificant; cited music video appearance is a series of very brief shots, not more than 10 secs total, not a significant role. Survived prior AFD 4 years ago under greatly relaxed PORNBIO standards no longer in effect. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I updated her Award section. Between 2003 and 2007 she collected multiple nominations (five, not considering best interactive dvd nomination for the movie My Plaything: Krystal Steal) at AVN Award. Now the article seems to respect the rules.^I'm (Cavarrone) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cavarrone Pass a Method talk 20:16, 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) 01:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like she passes PORNBIO with all those nominations. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Qrsdogg--Johnsmith877 (talk) 08:43, 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) 05:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron James (pornographic actor)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO with nominations in only a single year, no nontrivial relevant GNews/GBooks hits. Subject has a very small number of porn credits and appeared in an episode of a low-profile reality TV show, failing WP:ENT and the GNG. Article was created by a sock of the now-banned user Benjeboi, deleted uncontroversially by PROD, and recently reinstated after a REFUND request by an SPA with no other edits who also appears to be another Benjeboi sock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing any sourcing of merit — a web gossip page, etc. Doesn't clear the GNG for me. Carrite (talk) 04:19, 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and business

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

This is two sentences long, and reads like an essay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. The topic is encyclopedic, but this article is not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important. The topic is important. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was indeed pretty scrawny as of nomination, but it's a pretty legitimate topic for an encyclopedia. I've added some content and sources to help bring it up to speed. — C M B J 08:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With CMBJ's additions, this is a fine start class article. Obviously, it could become a much better article, with lots of details and subsections, but this is a fair start. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Qwyrxian that the recent edits have made all the difference. Thank you, CMBJ. I can see that this may become a POV magnet in future, but that is not an issue for AfD. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm saying "weak" because we have other pages that pretty much cover the same material that this one eventually will. I'm saying "keep" because the subject matter is clearly encyclopedic and notable, no matter how the page started out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ten refs, some content, and potential, there is enough for it to stand on its own feet. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 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 keep. As this is a Belarusian band it is unlikely that there are many English sources available. Consensus is in favor of keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stary Olsa

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to reflect notability under wp's rules. Epeefleche (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Y'know, them being a Belorussian band with 8 albums under their belt, I'm totally ready to say we should Ignore All Rules and keep here, regardless. Sufficient career achievement. Carrite (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carrite. So, is your thinking that they aren't otherwise notable, if we apply the same rules to them that we apply to, say, Australian bands?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To place Stary Olsa for deletion is utterly ridiculous. It is probably one of the most successful modern Belarusian bands, they tour in all surrounding countries.--Czalex 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the band successfully revives the musical traditions of Belarusian Middle Ages, is well-known in Belarus, frequently tours other countries, released many albums, etc. At this time this is the most successful band playing Belarusian Ethnic/Folk music. The request for deletion of this article makes no sense. Juras14 (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure what you mean by "RS coverage"? There is enough coverage of this famous band online. E.g. [of videos on YouTube], and >100000 links in Google for the original name "Стары Ольса" --Monk (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RS coverage refers to coverage by "reliable sources". Youtube videos, blogs, and the like don't qualify as RSs. We can't, as you suggest, deem the article notable because of the existence of Youtube videos.

Or, as the prior two editors suggest, because they "know" the band to be successful or well-known.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:28, 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.

[1] Authentication Revisited. 25 (3). March 1992 http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=J169&picked=prox&cfid=21318459&cftoken=81654866. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]