Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wuhwuzdat (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 11 April 2011 (Adding AfD for Alpha Omega Epsilon. using TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 10 April 12 April >

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 Keep on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Omega Epsilon

Alpha Omega Epsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 01:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable organization. This is a legitimate sorority for engineering women, present at many universities known for their engineering colleges. The page is in the process of having citations and edits done to it to make it read more like an encyclopedic article.
  • Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even though the nomination is half-assed, smacks of bad faith and lacks any kind of research, I didn't find anything that would enforce the notability factor of this organization, the article does not cite any sources, it is written like an essay (most of it without wikified text) and I've searched throughout the internet and could not find anything rather than what this organization is all about (a organization for women empowerment on the engineering and technical sciences field), and further research always provides Baird's manuals or national list of these kind of organization. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 19:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Numerous entries in various who's who volumes speaks of at least a nominal basis for notability. Chapters exist at various notable universities (Georgia Tech, USC, Virginia Tech, Michigan, Syracuse, Clemson, Wisconsin, &c.), so I believe an article is appropriate content for Wikipedia. Clearly the current content needs better citation.—RJH (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unreferenced puffery that smacks of information in a pamphlet handed out at orientation. Notability is questionable. Hasteur (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is arguing perfection; flag for sources. Twenty-five national chapters seems sufficient to imply that independent sourcing exists. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Delta

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm ignoring both the nom, and the keep votes based on nothing more than the nature of the nomination. Striking all that, we have a delete consensus. Courcelles 07:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Gamma

Alpha Phi Gamma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The national journalism fraternity of the same name, organized in 1919, also needs an article. This needs to be a procedural KEEP here, however. Admittedly this group, organized in 1994, would be the hardest to defend on notability grounds. We should not be encouraging drive-by article slaughters. Carrite (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from using prejudicial words such as "drive-by" and "slaughter". Evaluate the article on the same standards you'd use for others and you'll see that the article is below the bar. Hasteur (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer AUTOMATED and BAD-FAITH? You're welcome to those as well. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The most compelling arguments were "All Google news hits refer either to an older sorority in the 1930s or to a KKK-front fraternity in the 1920s", and "this sorority is only found in one US state, and has no secondary sources whatsoever". Arguments such as "not notable"/"notable", without supporting argumentation, were discounted, as were ad hominem arguments and arguments made on purely procedural grounds. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Pi Sigma

Alpha Pi Sigma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be something that is obvious to some via popular awareness, it should be noted that there is no easy to obtain evidence to support notability. The article comes entirely from the webpage and the correct way to counter arguments is evidence.Tetron76 (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If she wins and/or other sources are found let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Duncan McMillan

Cindy Duncan McMillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable unelected local politician lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 07:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Psi Lambda

Alpha Psi Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This AfD was closed administratively and re-opened (we don't disrupt process to make a point). Discuss the article's merits here. Hasteur (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This national Latino-interest Fraternity is still active in many campuses around the country. Members are in the process of updating this page. Please refer to www.alphapsilambda.net for more information about this active organization. ☎ 10:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC) --[reply]
    You are aware that we can't use the organization's own website to demonstrate the notability and fill in the information necessary per WP:PRIMARY? Hasteur (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Rho Chi

Alpha Rho Chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a major organization with many highly notable alumni--not in the least borderline. The criterion is unsourceable, and those wishing to delete should explain how they determined that. Even if it were, as I argued above, borderline articles should not be deleted on the basis of this reckless mass nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A century-old organization, many references at GBooks[5] and GNews[6]; the Alpha Rho Chi Medal discussed in the article is mentioned in many architecture bios, testifying to its notability as well.[7][8][9] The chapter house at USC was named a Los Angeles cultural monument in 1994.[10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the organization is so referenced, please feel empowered to insert said references into the article. Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This being completely optional and aside from the process here, of course. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite, the point of AfD is to both determine if the article is notable and to improve it if there's defecincies. If nobody goes back and improves the articles with the information that has been uncovered, the entirety of the keep viewpoints boil down to a "I want it kept because I like it" opinion, completly unsupported by policies. Please dispense with the low grade attacks and folow policy. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, I beg to differ. This is not the Article Improvement Workshop, it is a place where a determination is made whether an article topic is inclusion-worthy or deletable. While sometimes great improvements are made in the course of a topic's defense (I like to think I've made a couple), the basic function of AfD is the decision of life or death for a given topic. Carrite (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please note that the nominator of this piece has been banned indefinitely from making further nominations at AfD, either manually or by use of automated tools — as this nomination was. He is welcomed, on the other hand, to make an appearance here to tell us exactly why this long-established organization is "not-notable," which he neglected to do in the nomination. Carrite (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arxilixos; I see no reason why it should be considered a non-notable organization. Meets WP:N. --24.26.42.89 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Alpha

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions Hasteur (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete for now. If someone wants to work on this let me know and I'll be glad to userfy or incubate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary_L._Keady

Gary L. Keady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as per WP:BIO, Google returns nothing that establishes notability and four of the first five results are Wikipedia pages. Two of the three references are currently Wikipedia articles, and the only non-Wikipedia reference is an article about Australia's National Rugby League, and doesn't mention Gary L. Keady or anything relevant to him in any way. SudoGhost (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete

Poorly sourced and seems to fail wp:bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplepox01 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Kappa

Alpha Sigma Kappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So because we are "non notable" we need to be deleted? I'm sorry if I don't completely understand the rational behind this. The organization has been around for well over 20 years and is still fully active. alpha-sigma-kappa.org is out of date, but we are working to fix that. I am more than willing to work with others who are well versed in Wikipedia to clean this page up and make it fit within the guidelines better. Page Owner Ask bm001 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)ask_bm001[reply]
  • Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above comment. NYCRuss ☎ 12:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced minor sorority. No major claims of notability which hold this out as a group that warrants inclusion in WP. Hasteur (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, random non-notable sorority; unreferenced. As I have cast a good-faith delete !vote, this is no longer eligible for speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I can't find any Google News or Google Books coverage of this sororitiy (although I do find coverage of an earlier sorority in the1930s-1950s). I would love to keep this article since it is a national organization with multiple chapters but I just can't find the sourcing required. To Ask bm001: here is where you can find out what we are talking about: Wikipedia's criteria explain how anything or anybody has to meet "notability" criteria to have an article here. That has nothing to do about whether it exists or not, or whether it is a good thing or not; it is simply a requirement that outside, independent reliable sources have taken note of it and written about it. That's what I was looking for and didn't find. If we can find some truly independent sourcing about this organization, I will be glad to help you add it to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my !vote to Weak Keep based on DGG's reasoning below. This article would probably never have been nominated for deletion in the normal course of things. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the number of chapters is borderline, but it's in several states. As I argued above, borderline articles should not be deleted on the basis of this reckless nomination. This is not a "random" organization, but one specifically devoted to the special situation of women in science. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Phi

Alpha Sigma Phi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Pi

Alpha Sigma Pi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic puffery that very thinly is sourced. Hasteur (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Single-chapter local sorority. Google search finds that the name is not unique; there have been and are several fraternities and professional organizations by the same name, all of which seem to be more notable than this one. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fraternities with only one chapter in a single college, are almost never notable, & there's nothing to show that this one might be. True,this AfD is the product of a recklessly indiscriminate nomination--but by pure accident, a few of the nominated articles are indeed appropriate for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Xi Delta

Alpha Xi Delta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 00:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith as you would want good faith to be assumed on your contributions and nominations. Hasteur (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is one supposed to think about 20 or so nominations, all of which coincidentally begin with ALPHA, without anything more than a simple cut-and-pasted 4 word "rationale" and no visible evidence that the slightest effort was made to separate the sheep from the goats? Pro-forma nomination gets a pro-forma defense, and all these should be ruled a procedural keep by the closing administrator unless valid indication that the NOMINATION had merit can be demonstrated by delete voters. Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Zeta

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

non notable oganization WuhWuzDat 00:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per the discussion at ANI on the "Bizarre AFDs" by this editor, I urge a SPEEDY PROCEDURAL CLOSE of this and all other clearly bad-faith, automated ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK challenges, without prejudice to the opening of a new AfD debate on the limited number of pages which may well not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Carrite (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural keep as bad-faith nomination. Carnildo (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Gamma

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

non notable oganization WuhWuzDat 00:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable organization. My rationale is no more half-assed than this cut-and-paste nomination, which smacks of bad faith and a lack of any research whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)duplicate vote stricken. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following two comments were left at a duplicate discussion thread, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Gamma (2nd nomination).

  • Keep as this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. NYCRuss ☎ 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'll say something different this time. There needs to be procedural keeps right down the line for this entire mass of highly disruptive drive by shootings of Alpha-BLANK-BLANK fraternity and sorority articles. This sort of wanton article destruction, apparently taken on a whim, judging by the lack of research and argument backing each nomination, should not be rewarded. Nor should anyone have to put three seconds into defending disruptive challenges such as these from deletion. This is an exercise in encyclopedia-wrecking, in my opinion, from a self-described "semi-retired" Wikipedia editor. I would hope that some administrator steps in shortly to rein in this ill-considered onslaught. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied comments. The second thread has been closed as a duplicate. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • REWRITE - Article consists of very carefully worded paraphrases from 2 paragraphs in the only source for the article. Supporters are strongly reminded that we need multiple reliable sources so as to prevent questions of copyright infringement. Hasteur (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morbid Saint

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

Not notable. Fails WP:MUSIC: no charting, does not have significant independent coverage. Prod was removed by IP without comment. Onthegogo (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kings of Leon. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Followill

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

Member of a notable band. However, does not appear to have any significant solo activity outside of Kings of Leon (Wikipedia:MUSICBIO see italics at the end), relevant information here can easily be incorporated into band article. Fixer23 (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This person is of sufficient status to meet general notability criteria on his own. Although he did come to fame only for being a member of one band, the interviews which reliable sources are collecting are pointedly personal and probe into him as an artist and not as a member of an ensemble. The article's subject seems to be a celebrity figure in his own right. The Sun Village Voice MTV It seems that this might be the case for all the band members, because they all get questioned in interviews for their opinions on musical technique. I am cross-posting this argument on the other band members' AfD debates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the caveat in the policy applies to "individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases," surely attaining minor "celebrity status" does not qualify as significant activity. The policy takes into account that there will be independent coverage, but all with regard to the band's activity as a whole, obviously interviews are not going to always be conducted with all the members present. I'm not sure being asked separately about their instruments (in the context of their work in the band) constitues individual notability/activity. Surely being more popular member doesn't immediately qualify as notability? Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of them have reached the status of being a household name outside of the band (which could make this discussion less obvious). I think the main point here is that there should be "individual notability for activity independent of the band," the argument that someone "famous for being famous" sometimes qualify for articles based on notability established by individual coverage. However, in this case, individual coverage is inevitable and in the cases of pages of members of groups, those individuals have done work to differentiate themselves from their group, such as side projects, film, solo albums etc. Here, it is not demonstrated. Fixer23 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2011

(UTC)

OK, I guess you are right. However I feel this is ridiculous and should be altered at least slightly to exempt the frontman of the band from this rule. Maybe other bandmates that have no solo activity should still apply but I think that the frontman should exempt at least. For the time being I'll just stay out of this discussion while I see if I can get a change on that. MobileSnail 20:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kings of Leon. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Followill

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

Member of a notable band. However, does not appear to have any significant solo activity outside of Kings of Leon (Wikipedia:MUSICBIO see italics at the end), relevant information here can easily be incorporated into band article. The main difference between this article the pages of the other members of the band is an "attack" of the show Glee, which could in some editors minds be notable solo activity? Fixer23 (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is of sufficient status to meet general notability criteria on his own. Although he did come to fame only for being a member of one band, the interviews which reliable sources are collecting are pointedly personal and probe into him as an artist and not as a member of an ensemble. The article's subject seems to be a celebrity figure in his own right. The Sun Village Voice MTV It seems that this might be the case for all the band members, because they all get questioned in interviews for their opinions on musical technique. I am cross-posting this argument on the other band members' AfD debates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the caveat in the policy applies to "individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases," surely attaining minor "celebrity status" does not qualify as significant activity. The policy takes into account that there will be independent coverage, but all with regard to the band's activity as a whole, obviously interviews are not going to always be conducted with all the members present. I'm not sure being asked separately about their instruments (in the context of their work in the band) constitues individual notability/activity. Surely being more popular member doesn't immediately qualify as notability? Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of them have reached the status of being a household name outside of the band (which could make this discussion less obvious). I think the main point here is that there should be "individual notability for activity independent of the band," the argument that someone "famous for being famous" sometimes qualify for articles based on notability established by individual coverage. However, in this case, individual coverage is inevitable and in the cases of pages of members of groups, those individuals have done work to differentiate themselves from their group, such as side projects, film, solo albums etc. Here, it is not demonstrated. Fixer23 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kings of Leon. Given the presence of an obvious merge target, I gave less weight to the delete !votes. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Followill

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

Member of a notable band. However, does not appear to have any significant solo activity outside of Kings of Leon (Wikipedia:MUSICBIO see italics at the end), relevant information here can easily be incorporated into band article. Fixer23 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that as well. Seems he's least popular? Of course he's going to be mentioned in many news sources, he's a part of Kings of Leon. That is what this discussion is about, having a child doesn't pertain to having notable solo activity outside of Leon. Fixer23 (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kings of Leon. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Followill

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

Member of a notable band. However, does not appear to have any significant solo activity outside of Kings of Leon (Wikipedia:MUSICBIO see italics at the end), relevant information here can easily be incorporated into band article. Another band is listed, however it does not appear to notable (as of now at least, should be the main crux of the discussion I think), thus the caveat does not apply here. Fixer23 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just did some research on the "Jane Shermans", it should be disregarded. Followill is not a part of this band, which brings to question why it is even mentioned in "Associated Acts". One of the Jane Shermans "discovered" Kings of Leon. Thus, this should be pretty clear cut. Fixer23 (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person is of sufficient status to meet general notability criteria on his own. Although he did come to fame only for being a member of one band, the interviews which reliable sources are collecting are pointedly personal and probe into him as an artist and not as a member of an ensemble. The article's subject seems to be a celebrity figure in his own right. The Sun Village Voice MTV It seems that this might be the case for all the band members, because they all get questioned in interviews for their opinions on musical technique. I am cross-posting this argument on the other band members' AfD debates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Blue Rasberry. I'll admit, I really wasn't sure about this either way when I first saw it. MobileSnail 04:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the caveat in the policy applies to "individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases," surely attaining minor "celebrity status" does not qualify as significant activity. The policy takes into account that there will be independent coverage, but all with regard to the band's activity as a whole, obviously interviews are not going to always be conducted with all the members present. I'm not sure being asked separately about their instruments (in the context of their work in the band) constitues individual notability/activity. Surely being more popular member doesn't immediately qualify as notability? Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of them have reached the status of being a household name outside of the band (which could make this discussion less obvious). I think the main point here is that there should be "individual notability for activity independent of the band," the argument that someone "famous for being famous" sometimes qualify for articles based on notability established by individual coverage. However, in this case, individual coverage is inevitable and in the cases of pages of members of groups, those individuals have done work to differentiate themselves from their group, such as side projects, film, solo albums etc. Here, it is not demonstrated. Fixer23 (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avram_C._Freedberg

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

I don't feel the page meets notability standards. Rather, in my view, it seems to clearly meet the definition of what is not notable per WP:CRIME and WP:CREATIVE Kozitt (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kozitt (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for keeping pages that have something to offer, and I think that the improvements you've made to the page are good. However, I still don't feel that this individual is notable, even if there's spotty coverage over a period of time. The corporate information is already included on each company's page. WP:CRIME and WP:CREATIVE are on point on this issue. Continuing to consider businesspeople as noteworthy simply by virtue of their owning or contributing to a company turns Wikipedia into LinkedIn. Kozitt (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bowes

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

Notability not established with verifiable, third party source. Main film cited list's actor as "party goer", guest roles on TV series but nothing indicating notability. Awards cited seem to be from non-notable events. Article has been cut and pasted from IMDB and apparently edited by subject at some point. SeaphotoTalk 02:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The old "cut-n-paste" issue is now moot, as it has been dealt with through regular editing. The article was first created in 2007 by User:Themagicplum, and it seems that it was worked on by established users until User:Willsbowes made six edits in late 2008, after which time it was again under the attention of established ditors, with User:Willsbowes not making any additional in the following 2+ years. Article is now being edited and I will report back after more work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That two issues down, but I still question the notability of the subject at this time. Major awards would provide the foundation for notability, but I couldn't find very much on those cited. If you can find more I am open to withdrawing the nomination for deletion. I appreciate your work. SeaphotoTalk 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 29 March 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) 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable. I was only able to find credit listings for him, not any article that features him, not even passing mentions. The award from the California Film Festival doesn't seems too notable, but I'm not familiar with the festival whatsoever. Also the page given for the Los Angeles Movie Awards honorable mention doesn't list him or his short film anywhere - frankieMR (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation for a "keep" consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ikimonobakari: Members Best Selection

Ikimonobakari: Members Best Selection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not sourced at all, may as well be a hoax. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not sure if it merits a stand-alone article but certainly not a hoax. Look at the group's article Ikimono-gakari and you see the title of the album and four sources, including one that asserts it a million seller, though all of them are in Japanese. I have expanded the article a little bit accordingly. --Kusunose 04:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not a hoax, only a badly formatted new article. It is the lastest album by notable Japanese band Ikimono-gakari. I have added an infobox, reformatted/copyedit the article and added a couple more references. Hopefully it should meet notability as per WP:NALBUMS. BTW I have also taqgged the article with the deletion tag as it wasn't tagged when the AfD was created on 4 April 2011.--Michaela den (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess (Flash series)

Princess (Flash series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as there's no verifiable references that Trey Parker & Matt Stone had anything to do with the project which is currently the only claim of notability.

I'm unable to find any sources that can be used to verify that this content was made by Trey Parker & Matt Stone. There's a link to South Park Studios that can't be verified (dead link) that previously pointed to another website all together. There's also a link to SPSChat, a fansite which doesn't provide any reliable sources to back up its claim that Trey Parker and Matt Stone had anything to do with Princess and itself is not a reliable source. A Google News search provides two hits which have nothing to do with this show and I've gone through several pages of Google News Archive hits and haven't found a single reliable source that discusses the topic. OlYellerTalktome 02:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dead link has been repaired and confirms their involvement (rather easily as they just changed the page structure), and a confirmed project by the both of them that didn't go anywhere, which is expected as it was one of those killed by the dot-com bust and many of the links describing it were probably fellow dot-com victims. Nate • (chatter) 04:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The sense of the discussion is that the article improved enough to avoid deletion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taleeb Noormohamed

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

Yet another in the eternal line of unelected candidates in the current Canadian federal election, who has no properly sourced indication of notability for anything besides being an unelected candidate (which, per WP:POLITICIAN, is not a valid claim of notability.) He can certainly come back if he wins, but he's not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearcat, All honesty - this wasn't meant to be used as a campaign tool. Our intention was to use it as a biography of him for professional means - being the VP of VANOC and President & CEO of a turned-around technology company. I will edit the page to reflect this and use the political aspect as a small feature, not main. Apologize for inconvenience. Please let me know if this is ok. - User: Fudge786 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudge786 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page, Taleeb Noormohamed. Please let me know if this is satisfactory now. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudge786 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD needs to decide that, not me; to my eyes, it still has a "campaign brochure" tone to it (frex, referring to him by his first name instead of his last name, talking about what he believes, etc.), but it's up to AFDers to decide whether it meets their standards or not. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've made more changes to reflect what you've said. Hopefully this will be ok. If not, I can continue making revisions until it works for both parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudge786 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally don't see anything wrong with the article, which despite Mr. Noormohamed's present status as a federal Liberal candidate is neutral. Many North Vancouver residents doing political due diligence such as myself are looking for more information than appears in his campaign material. The article provides some of it. (moved from talk page, as this is a more appropriate location). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12phil34 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Wikipedia's job to provide "equal time" to all candidates in an election as a public service to the voters; our job is to demonstrate through the use of reliable sources that the topic actually meets our notability rules — and just being a candidate in an election, even a current one, does not fulfill that standard by itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudge786 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Verifiable and neutral, but I think this one is borderline for the GNG. Some of the sources are company press releases, and the press articles seem to be in the context of the election. However, they are more in depth than a casual mention. I think this passes, but barely. RayTalk 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ARTSPAM content has been rewritten in accordance to WP:NPOV, and his other accomplishments alone seem to be enough to satisfy the criteria for notability. Searching Google for '"Taleeb Noormohamed" -mp -liberal' turns some useful references not related to the election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 1 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 16:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DataObscura and Blue Oasis (record labels)

DataObscura and Blue Oasis (record labels) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but I don't find the two "keep" !votes very convincing and I see no point in another relist. The issue of merging and where to merge can be discussed on the article's talk page and as Shooterwalker says, we can always revisit this issue later. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wings (1996 video game)

Wings (1996 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable freeware game - although the game looks neat, there appear to be no reliable secondary sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fairly short review, part of a "monthly editors picks of free/shareware games from our BBS" article. More than a passing reference, but not very thorough (hence the "weak" keep). The article is not available online as far as I know, the magazine online archives only go back to 2003. A merge would be quite acceptable, but I do not know if there is a suitable article to merge to. This game is one of a number of 2D cave flying shooters which reached some popularity in late 1990s. MKFI (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, normally this would be merged into the developer/publisher article. At present I can only suggest List of freeware video games (which is what I did with Gate 88). Is it the kind of "2D cave flying shooter" that is sometimes called a "Thrust-clone"? There's another 90s example with borderline notability called Gravity Force (and I think another called Bratwurst.) There may be the seed of a catch-all article there. Marasmusine (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these borrow pretty heavily from Thrust, and Gravity Force belongs to the same genre. The finnish term for the genre is "luolalentely" (no article, but mentioned in fi:Videopelilajityypit (Video game genres), the english equivalent seems to be "cave flyers" [17]. Some other games in the genre: [18] (in finnish). MKFI (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I,m sorry Qb27 but there are apparently no sources that demonstrate notability. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wallert

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

This article was deleted per a proposed deletion last year and was recently recreated. The tone is strongly promotional with little substance, and I have not seen any nontrivial coverage in reliable sources that would indicate that he meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should be kept. All the information is easily crossed referenced with song titles, artists & events from other websites as well as many other articles & publications. A simple search would prove this beyond any doubt. Here is a person with 35 years of music work. Just the fact that he has served as president of the Society of Singers, Chapter East is extremely noteworthy. The Community work is also verifiable. In closing, one person cannot arbitrarily dismiss an extensive body of work without bothering to take the time to do the research. Independent verification supports overwhelmingly in favor of keeping this article!— Qb27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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) 00:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Fire II

Golden Fire II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy general notability for inclusion. Muhandes (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBC6446

SBC6446 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable single-board computer with no evidence of notability. The article has no references. It has three external links, and of these, two are to Empower Technologies (the computer's manufacturer) and the other is to Texas Instruments (the supplier of the processor used). Using "SBC6446 -Wiki -Wikipedia" as the query, Google Web found 3,500 results. There are actually only 249 "relevant" results — on the 25th page (10 results per page), Google omitted the rest since they were too similar to those shown. None of the 249 results were reliable sources. Searching for SBC6446 on Google News, Books, and Scholars returns nothing except for two books that redistribute content from Wikipedia. Rilak (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Problem Solving Foundation

Art of Problem Solving Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company does not meet the rules and policies for having it's own article (WP:ORG) Mtking (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Futuropolis

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

The PROD was removed without explanation. Seems to be a hoax, and I wasn't able to find any sources discussing it. Violates WP:CRYSTAL on the very off-chance it is true. — anndelion ※ 00:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have to confess surprise, but the discussion correctly pointed out a lack of sources showing notability. In the absence of reliable sources to show notability, the subject doesn't meet the standards for a standalone article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen Macintosh

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

Despite being featured in a highly notable television series, this actor is not notable. There is no significant coverage of him in reliable sources. Bongomatic 14:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's a recognisable actor - certainly as notable as many other 21st-century British actors with Wikipedia pages. Dadge (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows who 'Big Keith' is! "not notable" your comment is so laughable, where have you been? I take it back if you dont have a telly. I thought Wikipedia was the free encyclopedia - or is it you can only be here if bongo knows you and approves of what you do? And who is Bongo? How notable is bongo that he gets to stay and says who goes. Ah, I get it, Bongo is the GOD of Wikipedia. The creator and owner, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) 12:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This ones to help you out, Bongo with your deletion selection - Keith Bishop (The Office) its on Wiki too. Or is the fictional Character allowed as its notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What may be not notable to one has relevance and subsistance to others. This is afterall an information centre. Keep this! And if people keep attempting to delete information that has no relevance to them they will be doing wikipedia a huge dis-service. People will start going elsewhere for their information. People on here maybe try helping others before hitting the delete button as anyone new will not understand and know how it works and it hardly helps promote the site or encourage new people to sign up and stay when they see this type of service going on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickylady (talk • contribs) 19:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Pickylady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hear, hear Dadge (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrityfanclub, chill out. You make no sense of your arguments whatsoever. Take a step back and relax. This article is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – All this banter is slightly amusing; however, the article fails to establish notability using reliable sources. This is not an opinion, but a very basic application of notability Wikipedia criteria. For clarification, Wikipedia articles do not survive because they are notable, they survive because the subject's notability is established using reliable sources. Dadge, please note that "real-world" notability has no bearing in Wikipedia. The guidelines to establish notably, WP:BIO WP:CREATIVE, etc., are written in such a manner to eliminate one man's treasure is another's trash application of notability. No one questions his existence, only if he is notable per Wikipedia criteria. To everyone, I would suggest that instead of commenting back and forth to establish notability here in this AfD, someone looks for and puts some strong secondary sources in the article to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although he's appeared in a fair number of TV shows, he doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO as I can find virtually no reliable sources about him. The best I can find is this, an Office fan site, which I don't think is a reliable source: [20] Robofish (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The nominator's concerns appear to be addressed. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone has other concerns. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of creatures in Walking with Prehistoric Life

List of creatures in Walking with Prehistoric Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

empty list WuhWuzDat 14:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I move to my subpage and I'll create the list. --CamoBeast (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGI Homes

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

spammy article about non notable firm WuhWuzDat 14:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would point out that the article was not subjected to the speedy deletion request placed upon it, and was found to not be unambiguously promotional by User:Ged_UK. I would be interested in hearing which parts of the article are considered "spammy", and feel if they are found to exist, they could presumably be omitted or edited to guideline. As for notability requirements, the company is the 57th largest homebuilder in the United States (by raw sales numbers), and was also named the fastest-growing company by the largest of home construction sector publications (Builder Magazine) in 2009-- which suggests to me that the company is notable, as it was duly noted by these two third-party organizations. I would also point out that less notable homebuilders who aren't among the country's largest (such as Classic Homes) currently have their articles standing, with only prompts for revision, which seems inequitable. BizGooRoo (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is unambiguous advertising from start to finish. Appearances on lists of "fastest growing companies" and the like are close to the canonical sort of trivial coverage or list inclusion that does not confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Start to finish? Come now, I think we may be exaggerating the matter. Clearly we have a dual challenge as to 1) notability and 2) promotion. To the former, I say: however much one may loathe lists like the NAHB's Builder 100 (which is flat-out about sales numbers, and pegs LGI Homes as one of the country's largest builders, by the impartial statistic of dollars) they do confer a matter of notability within the subject's own industry of home building. Which, I presume, is of interest to anyone researching home builders. Is this company Coca-Cola? Certainly not. But it is an influential one within its own right and within its own business. Again, I have to wonder why other articles for smaller and less well-known private builders stand, yet this one is taken so readily to task. As to the latter issue of promotion, I respect Smerdis' opinion that the article is promotional, although that opinion has already been directly contradicted by User:Ged_UK's earlier appraisal. Can anyone point to a particular sentence or thematic that is promotional? As I have said from the start, I would be happy to adjust any and all perceived violating content as per guidelines. BizGooRoo (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Promotional, from start to finish. The opening paragraph says: community development focused mostly in the southwestern region. "Community development"??? I thought they were a building contractor. Or is "community development" what they call platting out another subdivision? This is the English language Wikipedia, not the patent nonsense Wikipedia.

    At any rate: LGI Homes has been noted within its industry as a company that runs contrary to the trend... the LGI brand was considered a success story among homebuilders during the collapse of the United States real estate market in 2008... The company also employs a sales force that receives close to 100 days of training before they are able to interact with prospective buyers... one of the most highly-trained sales teams in the industry... The affordable and entry-level home market that is the focus of the LGI Homes brand... The company currently has an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau... 100% pure Grade F spam from start to finish, like I said. The article is about as far from neutrality as it's possible to get. I would have speedily deleted this.

    And, since this nomination is going to get PR filibustered anyways, what, pray tell, is their claim to long term historical notability? What, apart from being the "57th largest homebuilder" in 2009, removes them from being just another firm in their industry? What is their significant effect on history, culture, or technology? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The mini-lesson on semantics is most appreciated, but I would point out that virtually every line cited as promotional is not mashed together from marketing dust, but rather pulled from real third-party coverage of the company. Builder Magazine wrote the article on LGI's contrary business practices (in an article aptly entitled "Exception to the Rule"). Same article profiled them as one of the only builders that turned a profit in one of the first years of the downturn--that was an industry assessment, not mine. An article in Exchange Magazine discussed their inordinately long training practices--this was an assessment from a publication for entrepreneurs examining different business practices, not my own spin. LGI Homes builds homes that are categorized as affordable (which refers to their actual pricing, not perception), and are marketed to first-time homebuyers, which is just a basic fact. Anyone is welcome to look up their BBB rating; if they see something other than what is written in the article, feel free to correct. If the phrasing irks, then the phrasing can be changed. A writer can't make these facts or these published articles about the company any different than they are. I simply wrote what I found.

    And since it's been brought up, why are there articles on any homebuilders at all, public or private? Where is their extraordinary notability? Sure, KB Home or Lennar are large companies, but what do they really do, aside from build subdivisions? --BizGooRoo (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I can't really see why this company is notable but since there IS significant coverage in some local newspaper, my previous "delete" argument is now refuted. Dragquennom (talk) 06:00, 1 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 02:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Laws

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

non notable firm WuhWuzDat 14:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny Quarles

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

non notable person WuhWuzDat 14:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think of my vote as a debate starter. Time to finish off these superannuated Nobody Gives a Crap random notability challenges seemingly created by use of an automated challenging machine. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well ok. In this case the article should probably be deleted anyway though, even if the nominator still had bad intentions. If you want, just consider my argument to be the main !vote so far. No reason to let one editor doing things out of bad faith affect the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R&A Promotions Co.,Ltd

R&A Promotions Co.,Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable firm, notability is not inherited from it's clients WuhWuzDat 14:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 25 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neko Jump

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

non notable musical group WuhWuzDat 14:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are numerous foreign language sources available from both Japan and Thailand. I added one of them a few months ago. I don't speak the languages and google translate is pretty inadequate, so I didn't add the others, but there were multiple interviews with the band members in seemingly reliable sources. Clearly passes WP:NBAND since it "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." Sailsbystars (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to say the article couldn't use vast improvement..... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - If there was not already another vote with work done by Sailsbystars, I would call for Speedy Close because the nominator violated WP:JNN. Regardless, despite a shortage of sources in English there appears to be enough for a basic article, but the group might be better off on Thai or Japanese Wikipedia, because there seems to be a lot more available in those languages. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that on April 14 WuhWuzDat was banned from nominating articles for deletion, largely for not observing WP:BEFORE and other requirements of the AfD process. See this discussion at WP:ANI, though the ban took place after this particular nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webchutney

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

non notable firm WuhWuzDat 14:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the top ad companies in India. There is enough non-press release coverage [21]. Has had enough independent coverage in indian financial media. Needs a cleanup to remove advertisement like language.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Smarty

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

non notable website, pure spam WuhWuzDat 14:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Wuhwuzdat,

Marking Fish Smarty as a non notable website and pure spam is outrageous. The website has thousands of visitors every month due the educational content it delivers. All the content provided is targeted at parents with kids 3-9 years old. The educational drawings, comics, games, contests are valuable learning sources. Recently kindergartens start using the website as teaching platform therefore marking Fish Smarty Wikipedia entry as spam is inappropriate.

All references and categories are valid.

May i ask you to review your entry and check the previous marking and history of the article?

Thank you Andrewrichard (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Andrewrichard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The main rules are WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability, both of which rely on WP:Reliable sources. What you need is sources, Andrewrichard. Sources independent of the Fish Smarty project, independent of financial interests, (for example, Amazon.com pages used to source books). Use Google Books and the other links up at the top of this section. I looked and could not find anything, but with what you know about the organization it may be easier for you. Regular Google is ok, too, but the quality of sources is usually lower. The trick with the wording in the article is to show the organization to be important, not say it is. "The goal of Fish Smarty is to deliver a safe place where children have fun, enjoy various activities and learn at the same time." is a statement you could just about get away with proving with a citation from the organization, but "Nothing is more important than online safety for children and parents together..." is not salvageable. Delete unsupportable statements of opinion like this. Trust me, it is either little things like that (that parents can read on the site anyway), or lose the whole article altogether. Good luck. Anarchangel (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, New content and recommendation from educationalkidswebsites were added to show that this portal is appreaciated around the world by parents. Please review and withdraw from deletion.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusttheguru (talk • contribs) 08:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — Trusttheguru (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is constantly updated based on company evolution and presence on the web. The site is notable thru the content it provides. There are very few sites out there on the web which provide educational content via child design interface and via an advanced UI. The UI simplicity was brought to light by the artists and collaborators they use (see section Company / Meet the team). In addition to this the community of friends they have on Facebook is quite considerable (+2000 friends) and Twitter is growing every day on average by 10%.

The website is providing an educational added value to parents and kids, who are the main consumers as such. And that's what it makes the site notable. Let's not expect that their presence is notable comparing to Disney, however it is notable comparing to Moshi Monsters. Joelangman (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC) — Joelangman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

More content has been added, really enjoyed how they present the world of education for the kids, using the characters. Each one represent actually a real personality in which kids can find each other or the people around them. Thus this is much easier for children to understand and learn. Such kind of learning process is making the difference and is sustain by all the fans from social media channels. Please review and do not delete this article. Trusttheguru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trusttheguru (talk • contribs) 10:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 22:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marques de Caceres

Marques de Caceres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability for this particular winery. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Here's a more lengthy quote from Wine Enthusiast: "Marques de Caceres is the number one brand of Rioja in the United States. Export Sales Manager Frank- Olivier Telling says the winery sent approximately 200000 cases to the US last year, of a total production that's just under 1 million" and here's the Google search [22]. Cullen328 (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caz Ferreira

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

CSD'd three times. Better formatted article but subject still doesn't meet WP:ENT NeilN talk to me 00:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

62TV Records

62TV Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable music label WuhWuzDat 14:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KKS Power Plant Classification System

KKS Power Plant Classification System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no assertion of notability whatsoever WuhWuzDat 14:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—This is the power plant classification system used in the FDR. Plenty of sources available to establish notability.—RJH (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - every electric power company has some kind of filing system and this one isn't particularly notable (and it looks like it is abuot to be replaced anyway). I could write a page about my local utility's "SCI" system but it wouldn't be notable either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Beer Cafe

Belgian Beer Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability for this company. Although a Google news or book search will produce a fair number of hits, they all appear to be reviews or directory listings of individual restaurants in local papers. There doesn't appear to be any coverage of this company as a company. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It should be noted that the article was created by a user whose name matches a company whose business is marketing in digital and new media. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I find more than 200 references to the chain around the world and in several languages, including the NY Times travel section and even discussion by Belgian government officials as well as several Frommer's travel guides. However, there are no detailed sources about the chain, but mentions about individual places. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empyre

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

Unable to find significant coverage of this "global media arts community." Strong promotional tone as well, which appears to have existed essentially unchanged in the article since its creation in 2007. VQuakr (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the requirements of WP:BIO are not met.  Sandstein  06:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Karpantschof

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article has some references, but is lacking secondary source to support. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the WP:BIO and must say that if you don't find a 14 year old ambassador to the UNESCO significant or notable, we really have some interesting parameters for success, don't we? ;) - Peter --Pjhansson (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am adding more citations from press and media outlets, but most of them are in Danish. I am eager to learn the craft of putting together a correct Wikipedia Article, including the lingo and correct citation. --Pjhansson (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Is the article sufficient cited now? --Pjhansson (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would say hoax, but reading the article does give the impression of an actual claim. The english sources are scarce and non reliable. There is a Daniel Karpantschof listed in Dogville as a development consultant, but even if it refer to the subject the movie didn't make him known for it. The claims in the areas of politics are not well referenced either, and even if it could be verified it would still have to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and the same for being an entrepreneur. It would be very useful is someone could review the Danish sources, but unless something remarkably notable turns out this is clear WP:SPAM - frankieMR (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his work is done in Danish, but a search in InfoMedia (Danish media archive) reveals extensive credentials. In terms of Dogville, the movie actually did make him quite famous in the international feature film industry. While it is greatly different from the mainstream community, being nominated for a Palm d'Or is almost as good as being nominated for an academy award. My Danish isn't perfect, but good enough to do media research. It's really no wonder that most of the sources are in Danish as he only recently moved to the US. --Pjhansson (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNews doesn't cover Denmark and 1999-2002 is before GNews covers even US. Have tried to find pages on the Danish Ministry of Education that would cover both Karpantschof's involvement in the board of education as well as UNESCO, but the pages are no longer there - not surprising since its been ten years. There are a lot of Danish media on the subject though. Tried to upload scanned frontpages to WikiCommons, but they were removed.--Pjhansson (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gnews is in Danish too. [24]. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

GNews is IN Danish, but doesn't cover Danish media. I see that the article has been deleted. I feel sad for you people. --Pjhansson (talk) 15:04, 19 April 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Lo Kat

Wong Lo Kat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable beverage WuhWuzDat 15:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week Keep | Need Modification, I'm a Chinese from Malaysia, Wong Lo Kat is actually a common name of herbal tea formulated by the founder. Almost all Chinese Traditional Medical Hall, or knows as Chinese Traditional Herbs Pharmacy sell the Wong Lo Kat herbal tea. Wong Lo Kat is much more a herbal tea's formula named after the founder. And few years back being commercialized by a giant can drinks company at China as Red Can Wong Lo Kat as what the photo posted at the page now. The page should keep only if the information given is more talking about the history and the ingredients of the tea instead of the company who canned it. Like computer software, open source software with modification can be commercialized but the credit is always to the Open Source Founded and not the one who just modify it. 219.95.123.254 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Even a cursory search demonstrates this is a notable beverage.—RJH (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rolando Hinojosa. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in Crime (novel)

Partners in Crime (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable novel WuhWuzDat 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cube Entertainment

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

Tagged for notability since March, this article fails to establish notability in any way, shape, or form due to the fact that there is no importance or significance stated. Nor can I find any ENGLISH source to establish notability. Perhaps someone can find some Korean sources? Given that, it might be better suited for the Korean Wikipedia.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I believe that technically I am the "page creator", because I had this redirecting to JYP Entertainment, a (previous?!) owner of Cube.. Anyway, there's indirect coverage of Cube as a Google news search shows. I don't know whether or not it's worth keeping on that basis, because the page would essentially just summarize the number of groups/bands under the company/label. It's hard to find information about the company because usually the focus is on the big three: SM, YG, and JYP. SKS (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep DLAwaster (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky (band)

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

non notable musical group WuhWuzDat 15:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No sentiment for deletion outside of nominator. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite's excellent rationale.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - First, the nominator violated WP:JNN and this AfD could possibly be speedy closed for that reason. Anyway, having an AllMusic entry helps the band out, and apparently they've been noticed by some major sources and appeared on the Craig Ferguson show, though I'm having a hard time finding anything more substantial online. Note that it's difficult to search for material because of the guy they're named after. The article definitely needs expansion and improvement, but it's keep-able and if someone wants to nominate deletion they should be more convincing. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that on April 14 WuhWuzDat was banned from nominating articles for deletion, largely for not observing WP:BEFORE and other requirements of the AfD process. See this discussion at WP:ANI, though the ban took place after this particular nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Qur'an

Digital Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable digital e-reader WuhWuzDat 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable generic type of electronic instrument. The article content itself has been hijacked by advertising for a specific brand name, but that is easily fixed. <edit-all fixed now Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)>[reply]
A few Google News hits for title. Also Google News search "Digital Koran": Indonesians tune in to digital Koran Reuters, The Almost Complete Lack of the Element of "Futureness" Heise Online, etc.
Five Google Books hits: Living the Information Society in Asia; Erwin Alampay. Religion online: finding faith on the Internet; Lorne L. Dawson, Douglas E. Cowan. The Death of Sacred Texts: Ritual Disposal and Renovation of Texts in World Religions; Kristina Myrvold. iMuslims; Gary R. Bunt.
Anarchangel (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article condensed, promotional material removed, citations added. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed Up Click

Screwed Up Click (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable musical group (actually, more of a club than a group) WuhWuzDat 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, DJ Screw is an influential producer for hip hop, pioneering and popularizing the "chopped and screwed" technique later used in Swishahouse records. They represent the South Side of Houston Hip Hop in the 90s and were a collective of artists that all had appearances on DJ Screws numerous mixtapes. Perhaps the article could be more historically represented - here's a link to Hip Hop in America: East Coast and West Coast By Mickey Hess page 450 in which he chronicles the creation of the Screwed Up and its cultivation by DJ Screw.

http://books.google.com/books?id=XkCncJ7j744C&pg=PA450&dq=chopped+and+screwed&hl=en&ei=zNyfTf2eGbTXiALBrszxAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=chopped%20and%20screwed&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.176.87 (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that on April 14 WuhWuzDat was banned from nominating articles for deletion, largely for not observing WP:BEFORE and other requirements of the AfD process. See this discussion at WP:ANI, though the ban took place after this particular nomination. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WebGLU

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

non notable software WuhWuzDat 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted per CSD - Copyright violation. ttonyb (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Costas Zapas

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

pure unadulterated spam, this person may be notable, but this article, in its current form, is inherently unsalvageable. WuhWuzDat 15:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India International Friendship Society

India International Friendship Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable organization, references section of the article is ....quite unique WuhWuzDat 15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRAMECAD Group

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

non notable firm WuhWuzDat 16:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhar Mann

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

I get the feeling that this is a case of inherited notability. Plenty of hits in Google searches etc but they seem to be either promotional or otherwise primarily relating to his company rather than him as an individual. Does this satisfy WP:GNG ? Sitush (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the creating contributor added the following comment to the body of the article on 6 April 2010 and I subsequently moved it to the talk page. I've been trying to help this contributor for some time regarding references etc {{quote|There are references, numerous articles, media coverage and notability with this individual. Please help em understand why it is up for removal... - (quoting [[User:WriteCreole]] as explained)}}
As I said in my nom, I do not deny that there are plenty of mentions of Mann's name. I query whether they meet GNG as being more than peripheral, PR, promo etc things that would occur in the normal course of business activities. I'm probably wrong but need to test this because I was going round in circles with WriteCreole. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of what one may think of him or his business model, he is clearly notable. He has had heavy, sustained, country-wide news coverage. I added four references to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there appears possibly to be a subliminal reference to me in the above Keep comment. For the record, I have no issues with the use, legality or otherwise of cannabis. I really couldn't care less. I remain uncertain as to the guy's personal notability, as opposed to that of the business that he fronts. Most of the references are in relation to his company: he does not inherit notability because of that. If he had umpteen businesses, most of which were notable per Wikipedia guidelines, then I could understand an entry for him. An example of this would be Carlos Slim ... but not Dhar Mann. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - see section on no inherited notability. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No dig at the nominator was intended; sorry if it read that way. I am familiar with WP:INHERIT but I don't think it applies here; I think he has plenty of coverage as an individual. Your mileage may vary. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FMR Records

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

This company does not have the "Significant coverage" that address the company directly in detail needed for it's own article. The only coverage that can be found is mentions and trival coverage. Mtking (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. -- AllyD (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Cyprus Travel Guide

Western Cyprus Travel Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in independent secondary sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ERPLAB

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

Does not have significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Google Scholar locates a number of references to this software, but they appear to be all brief mentions of its use in other projects, rather than significant discussion of the product itself. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I know this software from my own work and I can attest anecdotally that people in the field are familiar with it. But I can't dig up any coverage in independent sources of the kind Wikipedia generally requires for demonstration of notability. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Miggins

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

Fictional character of no external notability. No independent reliable sources. Sources cited are a BBC source (not independent of a BBC series), a blog (not reliable), a site selling a book by the actress who played the character (not really a source; if they meant the book it isn't independent), IMDb (not a reliable source). Suggest redirect to Blackadder the Third. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC) SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "As Mrs Miggins said of the fleeing French aristos in Blackadder the Third: 'ooh la la and an éclair for both of us!' The visit of diminutive French ..." if she is being used by newstatesman.com as a reference she is notable enough for an independent article. We don't delete based on the references as they stand in the article now, but how they are outside of Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes, you added a source link to the article. However, it is not an indication of substantial coverage of the character in independent reliable sources. Rather it is an insubstantial reference to the character. We're here to discuss notability. You cite fails to address that. In fact, I fail to see how the quote substantiates that "Mrs. Miggins is a fictional character in the British sitcom Blackadder." (That said, I will grant that Mrs. Miggins is, in fact, a fiction character that exists in the British sitcom Blackadder.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fictional character with a single in-line citation. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination suggests redirection which is not achieved by deletion. The nomination's claims of non-notability seem to be false. If it were non-notable, why would the nominator want to redirect it? Obviously the topic, has been noticed both by the nominator. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As I have explained to you previously, there is no case for a speedy keep here. I am suggesting the article for the non-notable topic be deleted and replaced with a redirect. That I "noticed" the topic has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. If I added a link to an article ouearhnjbgaewpirhn in an article you watch, you would "notice" it. However, ouearhnjbgaewpirhn would still not be notable, as you no doubt know. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To replace the article with a redirect, then ordinary editing suffices. Our deletion policy states that If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are making several contradictory arguments. You are saying it shouldn't be deleted because I didn't ask for deletion (actually, I did), that should simply redirect it, and that it shouldn't be redirected because it can be fixed. Please pick a defense for the article. Incidentally, the sources added give us one random quote from her, who played the character and that she owns a coffee shop. I can easily find more info on blatantly non-notable characters from most sit coms. If your argument is that no articles should ever be deleted, please say so. If you believe the character here is notable, please demonstrate it. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what is the reason for deleting and replacing with a redirect rather than simply redirecting? I don't see any reason for the deletion part of the argument, only for the redirecting. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because the character is not notable, the article should be deleted. Because the character name is a reasonably logic search term, a redirect should then be created. Nitpicking rules to say that makes this AfD incorrect is Wikilawyering at its worst. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: due to a lack of ability to WP:verify notability. As a note to other editors, if you don't object to redirecting, then !vote redirect. If you do object to deletion and/or redirection, then should offer a real reason for objecting, instead of WP:WIKILAWYERing some sort of technicality. Even a bad or subjective reason is better than WP:GAMEing the AFD discussion by looking for procedural reasons for objecting to the proposal. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleting or not is not a technicality. If an editor wants to delete the history in addition to turning the article into a redirect, they need a valid reason. None has been given here. Notability concerns can be addressed with a simple redirect, without deletion. Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Per nom. No reason is given for deletion, either before or without redirecting. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Popular character, popular show, endless re-runs, 3 refs. Szzuk (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect or Merge. Unseen character is a plot device, and without secondary sources there should not be a stand-alone page on it. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep--wrong forum this isn't the place for discussing redirects--the talk pages of the articles involved is. And clearly this needs to be at least a redirect. This would appear to be a case of forum shopping. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wow. That's a strong accusation. What other forums do you think I took this to? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you _didn't_ take it to the forum a redirect discussion belongs in--the talk pages of the articles themselves. Isn't that where redirect discussions generally belong? Hobit (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Assuming good faith, it would seem you don't know the meaning often implied by "forum shopping". I brought this to AfD to get more eyes on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was using it in the "... the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment." sense. Merge and redirect discussions don't belong here. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Speaking of trying to obtain a favorable judgment... saying that we HAVE to keep this because we're not allowed to discuss redirects at AFD is pretty litigious too. If you want to keep, just provide a policy-based reason. But don't say we have to shut down the discussion as a matter of procedure, as that's a reason based in what Wikipedia is not. (Namely, that a perceived procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_April_11&oldid=423433005"