< 23 October	25 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Ringer[edit]

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

Noah Ringer is not notable. He has only appeared so far in one unreleased film. According to WP:ENT, an actor has to have had multiple notable roles. He has had only one role. Also, not that much information is at all available about him. For example, the source for his age and home is IMDB, an unreliable source. He simply is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. SkepticBanner (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ENT. No reliable sources discuss him and has no notable roles. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single appearance in a film that is not even released fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ENT. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is really unnotable and there are no sources. Maybe after the movie has been released, or after he gets roles in more than one film. I Feel Tired (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His only shot for notability under WP:ENTERTAINER would be point one, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." 2. He fails this point. One unreleased film does not cover this. Points two and three of WP:ENT are not met either. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 08:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Five (band)[edit]

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

No indication of notability; no sources provided. Note: while this article would likely fail criteria for speedy deletion A7, I thought I'd give it a chance to be improved by using proposed deletion. However, the prod was declined with no improvements made to the article. older ≠ wiser 22:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find no evidence that this band even existed never mind determining notability. J04n(talk page) 00:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:V and WP:N aren't met Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC / WP:N Orderinchaos 01:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Game With Future[edit]

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

Contested PROD; I don't see any notability; cannot find any reliable sources Chzz ► 23:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not asserted. Josh Parris 00:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Complete rubbish. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunately, the extra time gained by the AfD instead ofa a CSD tag hasn't been used to improve, and other articles from same user don't seem to have gotten very far (see their talk page). No citation/sources to show notability and etc etc etc, I mean as a technical explanation. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverified; zero web search hits for ' "a game with future" +hoitom ' Marasmusine (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XBNBT[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources about this software. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN, on the odd chance someone fixes this article to meet V, N, RS, etc, I could change my mind. Miami33139 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - 36,100 Google hits is fairly impressive, but how much of it is reliable, third party sources such as those required by WP:NOTE is difficult to determine. Forums seem pretty popular for software, and I have a feeling that a large percentage of those hits are forum-type of sites (if you look at the first page or two of Google, apart from this page and the developer's page, almost all the hits are forums). I can't find many actual news items regarding this program, so I'm going with weak delete. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDP: IELTS Australia[edit]

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

Non-notable subsidiary of a non-notable corporation. Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe is not notable in America. However, please, notice this is the English Wikipedia. This organisation is very much notable in Australia and East Asia. Indeed, the Governemnt of Australia publicly recognises this body IDP: IELTS Australia. Also, you can find this body across all official IELTS websites:
http://www.chinaielts.org/english/new/media/20090301.jsp,
http://www.ieltsusa.org,
http://www.britishcouncil.org/brussels-ielts-20th-anniversary-release-final-global.doc,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23545690-12332,00.html,
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24496793-12149,00.html

Speedy delete under criteria A7. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 19:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage I can find is just mentions as part of articles on IELTS. That's not enough to establish this wholly owned subsidiary as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, article kept. JamieS93 22:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Billion[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Not every film made in the United States is notable. Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I vote to Keep it. It is a film, although not popular it still a film and deserves an article. Just google it and a bunch of stuff comes up about it--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but you obviously aren't looking hard enough. Just type it in google there is a lot of information on the film at IMDB, rotten tomatoes, amazon, moviefone, etc.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked hard enough. This is the only review on Rotten Tomatoes (the rest were summaries). IMDB, Amazon, and Moviefone are trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, I thought I was the only person who ever watched this, on TV back in 1979. It was a really silly plot, something about this guy who had one week to appear somewhere before a deadline in order to get a billion dollars that was coming to him. So instead of going straight to New York or wherever it was, he decided to drive across the country to get there. (Spoiler alert!) He got there. And when he did, he went to a microphone and said, "I AM MR. BILLION!!!" and the crowd cheered. Still, if all the article has to say is "Mr. Billion is a 1977 film directed by Jonathan Kaplan." then maybe I really was the only person who ever watched this. I'd be willing to change my mind if someone improves on it. Try Google news, it might turn up in a movie or TV review. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the page needs more info. Cynof Gavuf 09:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News turns up more reviews, but most are behind paywalls. A few that aren't: [1], [2], [3]. I'm fairly sure there was a New York Times review, but it's hard to get enough of a chunk of the article ([4] - one search showed me a snipped of text from the 3/13 article where Canby mentions a previous review of Mr. Billion (presumably the 03/04 article); I can't for the life of me recreate the combination of search parameters showed that snippet of text). --Chris Johnson (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The nomination does not identify why this article is being nominated for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- apology - I don't know what happened to make my rationale drop out; I have provided it now. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further explanation of my nomination - There is a strong bias, it appears, towards the idea that every film ever made in the United States is inherently notable; I oppose that attitude. although not popular it still a film and deserves an article" conveys that theory very well; but it doesn't meet our standards as set out in WP:MOVIE. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MOVIE. This is a non-notable film directed by Jonathan Kaplan, whose own unreferenced article is about 50% comprised of links to notable actors he has worked with. His article doesn't even mention this film; apparently if it did, it would merely be another blue link in that article–not an improvement. (I have questions about his own notability given the article that is currently written...but that's a different matter.) Google hits do not demonstrate notability of this film, and GNews hits merely represent screenings and plot summaries, not critical commentary. No awards or honors appear to have been bestowed upon this movie. Frank | talk 14:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - That was my first response to Kaplan's article, too; but if you look at his IMDb listing, he's done enough in the industry to sustain a claim of notability; it's just that none of the article is sourced properly in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Time Magazine reviewed this film. A Google news search shows that other major circulation dailies such as the LA Times, and NY Times also have reviews although these are behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw it too, not unsurprising since it starred as protagonist the Italian star of low cost comedies. As for the reasons I'd opt for keep, quite a number of sources appear from the previous comments to exist, even if not all easily obtainable. Also, the film seems to be mentioned to some detail in Jackie Gleason's bio., but since only snippets are available I may be wrong [5], has a review in the Video Movie Guide 1996 [6], as also in the film magazine Films and filming [7]; another brief review comes from Leonard Maltin's TV movies and video guide [8], and also has an entry in The films of the seventies [9]. This shows there are sources out there even if they may require some effort to access. There seem to be others from a fast look, but these mentioned should be enough to prove it passes the threshold of notability.--Aldux (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The guides you've mentioned above don't really establish notability as comprehensive guides are explicitly exlcuded in WP:NF. -- Whpq (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Awnser Yes, some of the sources are open to this type of objection, but if you observe that doesn't avail for all the sources mentioned.--Aldux (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to congratulate Joe Chill and Whpq on finding the Variety.com and Time Magazine sources, respectively. It's not easy to find online sources for a 1977 film, but in this case I can see two reliable sources clearly demonstrated in the debate. These are critical reviews, and I think that's sufficient to refute the questions about notability that the nominator raises, leaving no grounds for deletion. Keep accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doonesbury#Walden_College. There was no useful content to merge, and the target itself is unsourced so will need attention. SilkTork *^YES! 23:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walden College[edit]

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

Fictional college from Doonsebury comics. No references. All original research Blargh29 (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful content to Doonesbury. But also, there appear to be a couple real Walden Colleges: [10][11]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve and Retain; do not delete. And if there are real Walden Colleges, we also need a disambiguation page. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC) (A merger with Doonesbury would be acceptable if it is really a merger, and the information is retained, and "merge" is not merely a euphemism for "delete.") Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doonesbury. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain; Do not delete. I navigated to the page from the book Walden and was pleased to find it here. --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A_Different_World_(TV_series). Black Kite 19:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hillman College[edit]

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

Fictional college from The Cosby Show its spinoff. No real relevant refs. Most of the text of the article is original research and synthesis companies the fictional college to Spelman College. Blargh29 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too obscure to merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, with the accompanying redirect. As with Walden College, there was a real Hillman College [12], in Mississippi, that was long gone by the time A Different World came along. If someone were to write about that (and there are a lot of colleges that went out of business in the 1930s), this could become a dab page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - while not notable enough for its own stub, the citations show it is probabl;y notable enough for a mention in the main article, The Cosby Show. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hillman College merits it's own page. It is a fictional place frequently referenced on a top rated television show (Cosby Show was almost ALWAYS on the top of the charts when it was airing) that had it's own spin off revolving around the institution itself. Added to that, there is an internet pressence (albeit one that Wikipedia wouldn't recognize as "notable") that indicates that people actually think that Hillman College (the college from the show) exists. I could possibly see it as a sub in Cosby Show, but I think the entry, with it's citations, is relevant and extensive enough for it's own page. Logan brennan (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Cosby Show~~A Different World. There isn't the sourcing to establish any independent notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody remembers the Cosby Show spinoff A Different World (TV series), but that's the more logical merger target, since it was the setting for the entire series. Mandsford (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I agree that's a better target. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember A Different World. Redirect it there, clearing all the WP:Original Research. Abductive (reasoning) 07:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Whpq UltraMagnus^speak 10:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 00:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V.V.L.N.Sastry[edit]

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

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

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

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

Inadequately sourced BLP?, was deleted as a prod but restored upon request. Notability not demonstrated by non-trivial multiple reliable sources. Fails V, N, BIO & BLP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I forgot to mention this looks like an autobiography too... so COI issues to deal with too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spartaz., V.V.L.N.Sastry is an ideal person to many economically middle class aspirants to become some thing great in life. The article was placed by me as a third person. While keeping this article, many secondary sources available on google search have been used. I donot know how to improvise the article as I am not familiar with software, I also donot know, how to mention references in the running text. But I found more than 3,500 references about him on the net from credible sources including bloomberg, dowjones, wall street journal and forbes magazine. You can hlep me in improvising this. But my lack of skills in putting the article should not be a deterrent in profiling a great personality. Regards. Lakshmi Siddhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmisiddhi (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable sources about V.V.L.N.Sastry can be found in google search. one can click the following url [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmisiddhi (talk • contribs) 17:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

====Lot many reliabe sources about V.V.L.N.Sastry

Dearest Friends, For god's sake, please do not delete this article. Ignorance is sin. But we can enlighten ourselves with a simple google search on V.V.L.N.Sastry, lot of credible sources and updates. [14]Click the URL. Lakshmi SiddhiLakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)--Lakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all it needs is some inline references Shii (tock) 20:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, which inline references? not having proper sources is why this is at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources do exist beyond that Oriental haze-- a lot of Indian articles look like this, and only need improvement, not deletion. Shii (tock) 18:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, again. Not notable. Not the subject of any secondary source material. WP:BIO Bladeofgrass (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless there is evidence of this guy in reliable sourcesWP:RS (and someone may need to help out with this because perhaps only those intimately familiar with India can point out that there are in fact reliable sources), it should be deleted. Out of a compasionate interpretation of WP:BLP. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ITI have found this guy in reliable sources. I am from India and found that the sources placed in the article are reliable and noteworthy. windsirWindsir (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)--Windsir (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC) — Windsir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
""KEEP"" references are added. Some more citations are required to be added, The main thing is to add them, Keep It.WindsirWindsir (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You only get to vote once so please strike one keep please and please can you provide the sources you are referring to? Arguments by assertion tend to get ignored so evidence based responses are the most valuable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP KEEPSpartaz, An Indian can only understand, how popular the other Indian is? As an Indian, I vouch for the content. Sastry is a popular and noted personality in India. The article did not touch the valueble contributions made by him towards the society and living. May be you can add one more section to the contents with a title Contributions so that I can post the contributions of sastry. Even with the existing material there, you can keep the same.Stewartprabha (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC) — Stewartprabha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment These Keep votes seem a bit heated and unorthodox at best (if not off-the-wall). (Is there a wiff of WP:meatpuppetry?) But in the interests of "international relations" :-), here's a list of possible sources that I can't sort through, because their relevance or irrelevance requires a more sensitive understanding of the culture than I possess. But if some of these KEEP !voters (per WP:AGF, I hope there is more than one such !voter and none of them are in WP:COI trouble) could sort through them, I think there is a good chance of getting this article out of AfD successfully. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell none of those sources are about the subject of this article, he's just quoted in them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that can be enough to establish someone notable. See WP:Prof where it states that

“

Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.

”

. He's not a professor but he's an expert of some kind and whatever policy would govern that should have an analogous method of notability establishment. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prof is for academics not media talkingheads. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I said that up front. So repeating it indicates what? Is this supposed to mean that if someone is quoted often in the media, then only if they are also a professor can they be notable? Also for someone who accussed me of "assuming bad faith", I think it's mindblowing that you as an administator just called this person a "media talkinghead". Not sure what moral high ground or such example you're trying to set, but it's failing miserably. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable businessman. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete Hey guys, what kind of sources you need, are you guys asking to delete this article are aware of Indian Personalities. I have seen many biographies on wikipedia, you mean to say all of them are as per standards. Why you are trying to discriminate an upcoming guy with your irrational comments of delete, delete. The person V.V.L.N.Sastry has many notable sources. He is quoted in Forbes Magzine, he is quoted in India Knwoledge at Wharton Business School, He is quoted in Bloomberg, He is quoted in Dow Jones. Google search of his name is showing more than 3000 links. You guys mean to say, a non-notable person will get such kind of updates that too more than 3000 and on daily basis. He is noteworthy, that is why he is quoted. He is quoted for his rational comments on economy, business and industry. He is quoted because his comments are notable. Hence KEEP THIS ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkatraman111 (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete Hey guys, what kind of sources you need, Are you guys aware of Indian Personalities? or you mean to say some of the established sources from India like Economic Times, Financial Express, Business India or Fortune India are inferior sources as per you? I dont understand, what exactly you mean by notable sources. Just because you guys donot have geographical knwoledge, doesnot mean the credible indian perosnalities or indian sources are inferior. I have seen many biographies on wikipedia, you mean to say all of them are as per standards. Why you are trying to discriminate an upcoming guy with your irrational comments of delete, delete. The person V.V.L.N.Sastry has many notable sources. He is quoted in Forbes Magzine, he is quoted in India Knwoledge at Wharton Business School, He is quoted in Bloomberg, He is quoted in Dow Jones. Google search of his name is showing more than 3000 links. You guys mean to say, a non-notable person will get such kind of updates that too more than 3000 and on daily basis. He is noteworthy, that is why he is quoted. He is quoted for his rational comments on economy, business and industry. He is quoted because his comments are notable. Hence KEEP THIS ARTICLE.Venkatraman111 (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC) — Venkatraman111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep ItI agree with Venkatraman and also I agree with Firefly 322, The criteria for notability as per me is a person getting notified for his works, contributions etc., Here is a person, V.V.L.N.Sastry whose works in the areas of economics and financial mangement are clearly visible as quotes, TV appearances, quotes in leading Indian Magzines and Financial News Papers, International News Magzines and Financial Press. Simple Google search of his name is revealing bucket's full of overflowing information about this gentleman, what else is required to establish his notability. I strongly vote for keeping the article on wikipedia or else it will lead to discrimination and injustice as stated by Lakshmi Siddhi too.Maheshmanjrekar (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC) — Maheshmanjrekar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP The link provided here in provides information about Sastry,Dr.V.V.L.N.Sastry. Most of these links are available with India based leading News Agencies and News Paper Publisher's Websites. I am sure the other ediotrs at Wikipedia respects the local standards of India and doesnot question the India based sources for notability. I fully agree with others who voted for keeping the article. If possible improvise it.RameshChavan (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - the problem is not that his notability is based in India; but rather that being quoted in news reports and interviewed as part of a story on some other topic does not constitute the "substantial coverage" which we need to attest notability. Many times, this kind of passing mention reflects nothing more than that the subject knows a reporter, and that the reporter knows he/she can come to the subject for a quick couple of paragraphs or a soundbite on the topic of the story. Where are the articles about Sastry, as opposed to merely quoting him? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Wall St reference is him saying something (one sentence quoted) that anybody could have said. Another two references are to Google search. I've gone into the pdf twice (and found it extremely hard going - and it crashed on me twice). Appears to contain long lists of names - speakers? Are they all notable? Several references are uncheckable by me. Being an associate director and being quoted are not necessarily indicators of notability. The parade of new accounts in support - but not providing the evidence asked for - does not help matters. The more prominent the chorus, often the less prominent the 'star'. If there is evidence, please let us have it. Contrary to some opinions, we do not want to delete all new articles. We do want to have them fit the requirements. Peridon (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Referring to lists of Google searches also doesn't help. If the stuff is in there, put it on the table. Most of us haven't the time to check out every link there. There maybe some gold hidden there. Show us. Peridon (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given that he's quoted by the WSJ and Forbes regularly, one would expect someone to have written about him. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find anything at all about him. In the absence of any of the SPAs finding something about him in reliable sources, this has to be deleted. -SpacemanSpiff 00:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP ITcoverage by BUSINESS INDIA ABOUT SASTRYshould solve the problem of all those writing here without any reasoning by advocating deletion of the artilce. Business India is the leading Business Magzine from India. Business India has profiled Sastry, which should satisfy the view of a third party clearly mentioning the merits of sastry and also talking about acheivements and the contributions made by him. CHEERSRameshChavan (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- warning- That is not a link to Business India; it is a link to Sastry's own company's website, where some material is posted which purports to be from sources like Business India. The subject's own website is not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^^^^^'LISTEN'^^^^^That need not be a link to Business India, for that matter, Business India doesnot keep their content on website, it's a book publication very popular and top rated business magzine. The clipping put on to the website is authentic. If one needs to go by Orangamike, to identify a person, he may say that, the person should sit with their parents. Even when some one is trying to identify with ample sources, he doesnot want to listen and see logic. HEY LISTEN, Orangemike. High Time. NgandhiInd (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the absence of a more Sastry-focused reference, Orangemike, Peridon, and SpacemanSpiff views must "win the day." (I'm unstriking my delete !vote.). --Firefly322 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weird The subject's company asks people to visit Wikipedia for his profile. I think an early close per This isn't myspace and it's getting stale would be appropriate. -SpacemanSpiff 01:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that on the link your provide. Has it changed? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff, I don't see your observation Weird on the link you provided? Why are you wrongly posting here and trying to malign the image of sastry? NgandhiInd (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has been removed, they appear to keep track of this discussion. -SpacemanSpiff 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@@@@SpacemanSpiff!!!!! Stop justifying your wrong act of faulty links and your weird attempts by trying to spoil the image of others and trying to create some image for yourself. See the point pro-activelyNgandhiInd (talk) 16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)— NgandhiInd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I clicked SpacemanSpiff's link earlier today and saw the ref to Wikipedia. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra, When I clicked SpacemanSpiff's link earlier today I did not find the reference to Wikipedia. NgandhiInd (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRANGE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN BY Orangemike, Peridon, and SpacemanSpiff without any logic. I visited the subject's companylink and there is no link to wikipedia. Likewise, the business india coverage is show cased in the subject's website. What's the wrong in it. I think Orangemike, Peridon, and SpacemanSpiff are suspecting their own images. Please stop this negative propaganda. KEEP KEEP KEEP ARTICLERameshChavan (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC) — RameshChavan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I dont agree with Orangemike. If the subject's own company carries the coverage of independent media articles and if they are referred as the views of indpendent agencies, what's the wrong in it? You mean to say, Business India which is a fortnighlty magzine, should store this on their website for Orngemike to believe that the source is independent. Very strange. For your informaion, Business India is a leading fortnighlty business magzine read by all the business men in India and they dont keep their magzine on website as they sell their magzine in physical book form.RameshChavan (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)— RameshChavan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Presence of another credible third party coverage Fortune India Coverage of Sastry. Fortune India coverage show cased in the website of sastry's company. With Business India coverage already linked by Ramesh and with my present link, it is more than enough to establish that Sastry is notable. Two great magzines from India covering this youngster cannot be ignored. Keep the articleLakshmisiddhi (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)— Lakshmisiddhi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- - clarification - There is a misunderstanding here. We have no prejudice against the many fine people of India; I'm proud to say I've created or improved several articles on Indian topics myself, both here and on the Esperanto Wikipedia. The problem is that while we accept citations from prominent publications such as Business India, for reasons of verifiability, we cannot citations from undated purported quotes from such publications which are hosted on the subject's company's own website. Why? Because using modern software, it would be simple for me to create a purported article like that on my personal website, claiming that I had founded crores of important companies and enriched every dalit in Chattisgarh with my market brilliance! In this era of Bernard Madoff and the like, we must be vigilant about what could be falsified "clippings" (we've had that happen before). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!!!!!!Orange Mike'', please stop your cynical comments about citations. Your knwoledge of of creating purported articles need not necessarily be the same with others. If so, 'so many agencies may not be quoting, whether in this context of notability or other'. He is considered to be an expert. Let us take the point at face value. Your comment is making me think wildly that, if some body asks you to prove your self as Orange Mike., how will you prove man??? Is there any secondary or primary proof for that?? If some body says that Orange Mike should have a written source available for one to believe that he is Orange Mike!!!! what will be your reaction. If you show case your birth certificate on your website and some body links it and says this is the proof of Orange Mike, even then, would you say that 'citations from undated purported quotes from such publications which are hosted on the subject's company's own website, hence cannot be taken. Come-Off. Stewartprabha (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Orange Mike, you have stated that, you helped in improving many articles on Indian personalities, This is my request to you, to improve the article of v.v.l.n.sastry. It has all the necessary ingredients, may be presentation requires improvement. Why dont you help in doing that and add another Indian to your list.Stewartprabha (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMike userfy the article and help Indian's. ColinCliflaw (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a little comedy relief, I draw your attention to this biography of V.V.L.N. Sastry] from the Boston University School of Theology. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP :: I am an Indian, I got into this board having heard of discrimination on sastry's article. As an Indian from the business hub of India, Mumbai (Bombay), I can vouch for the credentials of Sastry popularly known as Dr.Sastry. He is considered in India as an Economist and Financial Analyst. The links that are provided or the press clips or magzine clips that his company's site presents are correct and notable.NgandhiInd (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)— NgandhiInd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment and Quote from myself above: "The more prominent the chorus, often the less prominent the 'star'. If there is evidence, please let us have it. Contrary to some opinions, we do not want to delete all new articles. We do want to have them fit the requirements." (This is a part of Peridon's negative campaign.) Please note that 'vouching for' Dr/Mr Sastry is no use. Sorry, but you don't count as a reliable independent source. We are not denying that "He is considered in India as an Economist and Financial Analyst.". We are saying that we need evidence of the notability that distinguishes him from the thousands of other economists and financial analysts in India and the rest of the world. That he is Indian is of no particular relevance. The origins of an economist would only be possibly considered if he/she were the only one in existence in their nation. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Quote' from NgandhiInd: PERIDON, u are comparing Oranges with Apples. Chorus is summuation of all voices distinctly remarking a particular thing. Where as Star is the distinct remark of the chorus and that particular thing about whom the chorus is voicing. We all are saying one thing, when you say evidence of notability, enough number of evidences are quoted in this page itself, since the beginning of this discussion. What else you require?. Here is a financial analyst who appears freequently on CNBC, NDTV Profit, Bloomberg UTVI the leading business channels in India on daily basis, who will take a person freequently on TV Channels unless he is popular or notable?. Besides, He is a person freequently quoted in diversified media on various topics on economy, industry and companies. Which media guy will quote any one in the leading business dailies?, even some where in a paragraph on daily basis?, unless you find notability or popularity or relevance of that particular person in context of the story line that a journo takes. Why leading business magzines, profile the person, unless they find suitability of that profile in their magzines. So when you corrobarate all the above, what else you require for justifying the notability of sastry. He has everything in his fold required for notability as the criteria for his article to continue in wikipedia.NgandhiInd (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia policy, coverage from reliable secondary sources is required to establish notability (see WP:PSTS). I should point out here that the website of Dr Sastry's company is a primary source as it is directly connected to the subject, even if it is reproducing material from other sources. This policy applies to all articles not just this one - if you take a look at some of the other articles nominated for deletion you'll see that lack of sources which comply with Wikipedia's policies is probably the most common reason for nomination. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

+Cassandra, Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and guide lines on sources are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of __common sense _ and good editorial judgment.ColinCliflaw (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)— ColinCliflaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - There is no inpdependent coverage about the subject to establish notability. Being quoted alot in this case is not an indication of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. It appears that the subject and/or his aides trying to promote their company through Wikipedia. Salih (talk) 04:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- KEEP*** I would like to know the credentials of the persons and a proof, both primary and secondary, that they are capable of passing comments titled "Delete", only then I feel that they are capable of commenting or assessig the notability of some one or else they should stop negative comments. Keep sastry's article.Stewartprabha (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT Its well linked now. The article is meeting wikipedia standardsColinCliflaw (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)— ColinCliflaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: This discussion is being inundated with people who may well be linked to VVLN Sastry in some way, but love the man in any event. But the question is whether he is notable. He appears to be a business executive in India. Claims are made that he has been profiled in "Business India" and "Fortune India," though 6 out of 12 current references in the article are not linked to any online source and the info provided in the references is sketchy. Among the other 6 current references, 2 are to google search URLs, 2 are to firstcallequity (where he is employed), 1 is to a random quote in a Wall Street Journal article not about him, and the last is to a picture of him in a group of shots about some accounting conference in India. So, I can't verify notability through any of that, and lean against it. My google news archive search[15] yields 111 hits. Most every reference appears to be quotes from him in the context of articles discussing of market performance -- because his company does market analysis and trading stuff. I then looked at the two largest Indian papers: The archives of The Hindu give me 5 hits from 2003-08, all of the same quote variety, and I yielded no better at The Times of India archives. There is one link in the above discussion from one of the article's supporters which leads you to an article scan posted on the firstcallindia.com website, which purports to be a one-page profile of VVLN in "Business India" -- I suspect that is not made up, but that is only thing i have seen that supports notability.--Milowent (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in view of the comment above, and the problem of the Business India article only appearing on Dr Sastry's company website and therefore not being a third-party source. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Delete*Presence of another credible third party coverage Fortune India Coverage of Sastry. Fortune India coverage show cased in the website of sastry's company. With Business India coverage already linked by Ramesh and with my present link, it is more than enough to establish that Sastry is notable. Two great magzines from India covering this youngster cannot be ignored. Keep the articleLakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::: As observed by Milowent, there is another article from fortune india, the scanned version of which is appearing in the above given link. This is another thing which supports the notabilityLakshmisiddhi (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have already presented the Fortune India source in this debate. I have already explained why coverage which we can only obtain from Dr Sastry's website cannot be used to support notability (as has Orangemike), so I'm not going to repeat myself. All of the sources provided have been considered, and the regular contributors here have explained why they are insufficient or unsuitable according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough sources to establish notability. Also, the many of the more unorthodox "Keep" advocates seem fishy.--Blargh29 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. I'm sure the closing admin can be trusted to ignore the crapflood of "keep" non-votes from socks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - in all fairness, I don't think these are sockpuppets. I believe most of them are just noobs who don't understand the principles under which we operate, and are simply responding to a call for support. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Having searched for sources on Google and Google News Archive, I could only find passing mentions that did not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, then redirect to Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago. NW (Talk) 17:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBTT[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a BitTorrent tracker project developed primarily by DreadWingKnight. Good for DreadWingKnight for making his own BitTorrent tracker. I bet he can also kick your heinie in any of several multi player first-person shooters. Suggest redirect to Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago, b/c that's what "CBTT" stands for in all the news hits. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect as noted as noted by Smerdis. Miami33139 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's over gaming[edit]

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

~~Just a unfinished list of games except with a bunch of references. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)~~User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If above can be proven or happened already (a diff from an admin discussion or checkuser I'd assume), the original would meet CSD-G5. I don't see anything as of now. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to decide if the creator(s) of the article are trying to create a list or a forum. Perhaps someone typed up their notes without thinking. At the moment hard to say if this is anything or nothing. Definitely tells you little about the subject of the article. Maybe this is all there is to tell.... Peridon (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really anything, the fact is the page was made to better document the Gaming Community "iO Gaming / It's Over Gaming", there is little to no purpose for the page besides pure advertising. I support the deletion of this page as both a Wikipedia User and an [iO] Gaming community "Member". Additionally our Management (CEO) has expressed that he would like to see the page be removed | Source Here 24.150.72.6 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have concerns over notability. On the talk page, the author admits: "There is one problem that I probably can't evade very well and it's that iO is not a very well known community ...". Add to that the sourcing that appears to rely very heavily on the organisation's own forum, makes me suspect it is not sufficiently notable fir inclusion in the encyclopedia. Astronaut (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think this suffices[16] as evidence. Self-admission of it being a G11 article puts this way up there on the list of "most obvious ever". ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criteria G11 or A7. Their number of registered members is not an indication of importance. Marasmusine (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Abbadi[edit]

Non-notable boxer. Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guy only has four fights, which doesn't indicate notability. No other indication is given. Also lacks references for most of it, so most of the content fails WP:BLP. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Google search shows some notability, references will be needed. Atyndall93 | talk 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can find no reliable sources for this guy. The only mentions of him in reliable sources just mention that he fought, there's nothing to write a bio from. Corvus cornix_talk 22:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS Gary King (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 17:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable organiztion, sources, with one exception to a Malta ... I'm not sure what that is ... all suggest this is just another quasi-religious group jockeying for political power but very little evidence they seem to actually have any. IMHO, they seem to criticize LGBT legislation, culture but aren't even known well for doing that. Absent strong independent reliable sourcing I think it may be too soon for this article. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does official work at the United Nations on behalf of the Holy See and the Pope (cf activities of the Holy See within the United Nations system and multilateral foreign policy of the Holy See). Anybody who is familiar with the social policy debates surrounding population control and abortion at the United Nations must necessarily have heard or read about this group. By the way, Benjiboi, it isn't really an anti-gay group, it's more of an anti-abortion organization. ADM (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am only familiar with this group in context of an edit war to prop up a lengthy "Criticism" section which has since been greatly trimmed and merged. If they are notable as an anti-abortion group then reliable sources should reference that. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Books search linked above finds plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In the first four are this and this. I haven't got time to go through the other 93 at the moment. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of Phil's sources. Looks like an instance of not following WP:BEFORE and assuming rthe absence of sourceability. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did actually but didn't make the "C-Fam" connection, I also saw "A pro-family group called the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, which has a permanent office at the UN in New York and keeps a close eye on all UN ..." which does suggest some notability. Unfortunately I've experienced some rather unacceptable sourcing presented from the article creator on other articles so I was perhaps more skeptical than I should be. I'm leaning towards keep myself but I'd rather have more eyes look to see that the sourcing is reliable and independent of the group. -- Banjeboi 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Phil Bridger. There are also some news sources showing notability. Note that this is not a "vote" in favor of the organziation - see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be no reason for deletion apart from critical attitude adopted by certain individuals towards this organization. No serious grounds for deletion = no deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.83.48 (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 77.253.83.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- My views on the groups really don't matter and I have registered that my opinion has changed. If you can improve the article so our readers can see why this group is notable it would indeed be helpful. -- Banjeboi 20:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See the Ackerman AfD, which I'm also taking into account to some degree. The "merge" opinions appear to be moot, as Schott is (now?) mentioned in Service number (United States Marine Corps). Sandstein 07:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Schott[edit]

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

Just being first alphabetically when the USMC started issuing service numbers does not make someone notable, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ackerman (USMC). ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: This is a well referenced article about the person who is listed in every military history textbook that I have read about service numbers as having the first United States Marine Corps enlisted service number in history. There is a large collection about his life on file at the Marine Corps historical society and his service record has been deemed "Person of Exceptional Prominence" (PEP) by the National Personnel Records Center. A very obvious keep; was surprised to see this up for deletion along with James Ackerman (USMC). See Arthur Crean for another military service first and Jack W. Hill for another USMC notable service numebr article. -OberRanks (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prove it that he's in "every military history textbook." Having the first number alone is absolutely not notable. I can't find anything on Books or Scholar. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are already stated in the article. There are at least two volumes about him on file at the Marine Corps historical society. I could probably find several more military history textbooks which mention his name. -OberRanks (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Should be mentioned in Service number (United States Marine Corps), and that's about it.—Kww(talk) 20:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just got an e-mail that he is mentioned in "USMC: A Complete History" by Jon Hoffmann which covers his World War I service and speaks of his significance as the holder of the first enlisted service number in the United States Marine Corps history. -OberRanks (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or smerge. Even on the assumption that getting the first service number is somehow notable, this is, at best, WP:BIO1E. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that the mentions in the "military history textbooks", if they exist, are anything more than trivial. Service record copies obviously cannot establish notability, otherwise every single serviceman would be notable. (also posted, mutatis mutandis, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ackerman (USMC).Tim Song (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: He's had some mention in several significant historical accounts, and all of the refs are good reliable sources. While I'm not expecting WAX to make a good deletion argument, my opinion is that he's at least far more notable than, say, Paris Hilton. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a multitude of articles on military officers on WP but damned few on the enlisted. If it had been an officer that got the first MC serial number theywould have probably found an excuse to give him a medal.(just kidding, don't get yer hackles up) If he's sourced I don't see what the problem is. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete. Insufficient references to meet notability, as none of them appear to be indepth enough to warrant notability with so few references. Furthermore, unless the individual was awarded any notable awards (thus he'd be covered under WP:ANYBIO), he falls under WP:BIO1E, therefore pertinent information should be merged into the article Service number (United States Marine Corps), and the rest should be deleted and replaced with a redirect. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and merge any relevant material. Article does not sufficiently meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 just having service number one, even if that fact is mentioned in any number of books, is not sufficient to establish notability. Sandstein 07:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Ackerman (USMC)[edit]

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

Does this fact make the individual notable? Cynof Gavuf 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having the lowest service number does not make someone notable. He did not do anything to get this number other than first alphabetically when the numbers were created. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: James Ackerman is mentioned in every military history textbook that I have read about military service numbers as having the first Marine Corps officer number in history. That makes him extremely notable. Very surprised that this is even being suggested for deletion along with Alexander Schott. See also Arthur Crean for another military service number first. -OberRanks (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it with sources. "Every military history textbook" doesn't seem to be showing up on Google Books or Scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 October 2009
- I added two sources from NPRC and one from the Marine Corps historical institute, where there is at least a volume of history material including copies of his service record. I could probably very easily find several more military textbooks where his name is mentioned but wrote this as a stub since it was sitting as a red link on the article Service number (United States Marine Corps). I never expected it to be nominated for deletion. -OberRanks (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never expected someone to have an article just for having the first number. There are surely copies of service records of thousands of marines; being the one with #1 because his name starts with A doesn't make him any more notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding the first USMC service number in history, regardless of why they assigned it, is itself notable (at least I think so). Also, this is only a stub. I would imagine Ackerman probably has a very thick service record with all kinds of accomplishments from World War I. I think he might also be a Silver Star recepient, which would also be another postive hit for keeping the article. I could verfy that, but would need a few days. -OberRanks (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All required information is already contained in Service number (United States Marine Corps). Unlikely search term, and no information from this article needs to be retained.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got an e-mail that he is mentioned in "USMC: A Complete History" by Jon Hoffmann which covers his World War I service and speaks of his significance as the holder of service #1. -OberRanks (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even on the assumption that getting the lowest service number is somehow notable, this is, at best, WP:BIO1E. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that the mentions in the "military history textbooks", if they exist, are anything more than trivial. Service record copies obviously cannot establish notability, otherwise every single serviceman would be notable. Tim Song (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I think he was awarded the Silver Star. I will need a few days to contact the Marine Corps and get a list of his decorations. That is why it was such a shame that we rushed into a deletion when this was only still a stub and I had not yet had time to research him completely. -OberRanks (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Between 100,000 and 150,000 Silver Stars have been awarded. Even earning that does not guarantee notabliity. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we could find many "reasons" to delete the article, but just on the surface he is mentioned in a major history textbook, in two federal government memos, and his record is deemed high profle by NPRC. You're made your position clear, though, so thank you. I will continue to research him and see what else I can find. What I've said so far is just based on the barest of research into him. -OberRanks (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is still only a stub, perhaps the editor should be allowed time to expand and assert further notability. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: He's had some mention in several significant historical accounts, and all of the refs are good reliable sources. While I'm not expecting WAX to make a good deletion argument, my opinion is that he's at least far more notable than, say, Paris Hilton. At the very least, give it some more time to develop with the additional information OberRanks mentions. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or give it a chance to develop further I would agree with the comment of G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ and give author time to research the man and his career. Whats the hurry? I have to spend 15 minutes a day just fixing stuff that is vandalized that is on my watchlist; if OberRanks wants to spend some time researching the man, I say give him the time.Cuprum17 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the depth of published sources about the man needed to meet WP:BIO. This is at best a sentence in the relevant article about USMC service numbers. Responses to queries to archives are not suitable for establishing notability. I'd suggest that userfying this article would be the best option here so that User:OberRanks can continue to work on this article, which does not meet the relevant criteria for inclusion at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears in a published military series about the Marine Corps - reference was added two days ago.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nick-D unless it is proven that this officer did something notable, as opposed to being mentioned in the USMC service numbers article. Buckshot06(prof) 07:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gotten four e-mails at this point from the USMC Historical Society that this veteran was a Silver Star recepient and participated in several WWI battles in Europe where he was cited for heroism. It will take me about 2-3 weeks to get this material in the mail. On top of this, we are getting away from the fact that holding service #1, in a service number system where over three million such numbers were issued, sets this man apart in some way at least. Being a stub is not a good reason to delete it since, after the SS and WWI material comes in the mail, it will amost certianly be rewritten and recreated. -OberRanks (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being the lowest service number does not set anyone apart unless it is done for a notable reason such as the article on Arthur Crean appears to say about John Pershing. There are ~100,000 Silver Star recipients, not a notable achievement. Millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of all nations participated in WWI battles in Europe and good percentage were cited for heroism, but that does not make them all notable. If this is deleted, I suggest userification so OberRanks can continue to work on it as new information is available. It can then be re-evaluated with new information. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. As others have stated above, having a service number does not make someone notable enough for inclusion by Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above - possible Silver Star recepient cited for heroism. Will need 2-3 weeks to confirm, but four e-mails from the USMC Historical Society say that he is. -OberRanks (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did see that. Although worthy of our respect and admiration, a Silver Star in itself is also not quite notable enough for someone to warrant inclusion by Wikipedia's standards. It is typically accepted, in regards to decorations, that only the recipients of a nation's highest honour (eg Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor) are automatically notable enough for inclusion. No offence, but a service number and Silver Star does not quite cut it per WP:BIO or WP:MILMOS#NOTE. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would actually argue that it would. We have several articles about Silver Star recepients (it is the 3rd highest award in the US military for bravery) and add to that the veteran has the historical significance of holding service #1. In addition, it is extremely likely he was involved in some of the more major battles of World War I and possibly on the planning staffs - on the surface, that is at least four items to make him notable. I do not want to break WP:CRYSTAL, but it seems very counterporductive to delete this article KNOWING that it will be rewritten in about a month with all of this material. Schott is an entirely different story, sad to see him go but not much to hold him up. Ackerman, however, has more than enough to warrant an article at this stage - I just need to add it all in and coordinate the reference material. -OberRanks (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also add that we appear to have an entire category devoted to recepients of the Silver Star: Category:Recipients of the Silver Star -OberRanks (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say articles on Silver Star recipients do not exist, but that it is very doubtful that a person whose sole "claim to fame" is that they are a recipient of that decoration would be deemed notable enough for inclusion by Wikipedia's standards; several AFDs on such people have resulted in a delete in the past. If you were to look at the people listed in that category, you would find that the vast majority of them would be notable for other feats, such as becoming an actor, or a general, etc. As I stated above, by guidelines only recipients of the highest award are deemed automatically notable, not second or third level. Also, as I have stated above, I still do not believe this individual is notable enough for inclusion and whether or not it will be rewritten in a month is irrelevant. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we will find out because I have every intention of rewriting the article once the material from the USMC gets here. This has sadly become a situation of deleting the article becuase its a stub without giving more time for the addition of further material. It also is rapidly looking like there is a general attitude of "I dont't care what you say, he will never be notable as far as I'm concerned." I am not saying that in a negative way, it is just a pity that we will probably be back here again once the article gets re-written (I would also protest any speedy delete of the re-written article). -OberRanks (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't read any of the delete comments as you seem to be reading them. I don't think anyone is saying delete it because it is a stub. I also don't believe anyone is saying that if the article is reworked and he is shown to be notable that they would still recommend deletion. I know I have read everything you and everyone else has put on this page and am continually re-evaluating my position. The problem is that none of the new information says that he is notable. Silver Star recipients are not automatically notable, participating in battles and being cited for heroism is not notable in itself, being on the planning staff for battles is not notable, having the lowest service number because of the alphabet is not notable. Even adding all this together is not enough for his own article. A part in a larger article is appropriate, but it is already there. I think a little good faith that people are evaluating the information available and then making a decision is appropriate. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certianly not blaming anyone, here. Everyone on Wikipedia is welcome to thier opinion and the voice of consensus is what rules this site and we should all follow it. If the consensus wishes a deletion, then thats fine. I do plan to re-write the article - I think a lot of the nay-sayers here will actually be very surprised what might come out about this veteran especially if he was indeed on planning staffs and tactical committees during the First World War. There is not much else I can say here. I am in the dark until the package gets here from the USMC and I can read about what he actually did and wheter or not he was a Silver Star holder. -OberRanks (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article appears to have nearly no information on the person (date of birth or anything individual) other than one line on the Silver Star and was involved in major WWI battles (with a few million others). All the other information is about the service number which could be in the related article. Daft question didnt the USMC use numbers for the first hundred odd years the Service number (United States Marine Corps) doesnt explain what happened before (just raises a further question about the notability of being first in the current system if they had something before). MilborneOne (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Service numbers did not exist prior to about 1918. The main article Service number (United States armed forces) for more info. One of the main reason this veteran is notable is becuasr the hold the very first service number in the United States armed forces is somewhat a point of honor, regardless of why or how you were selected. -OberRanks (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Nothing to do with this debate but it seems strange that the US forces did not use some numbering system to record personnel before 1918.~~ Sorry, not relevant MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have a particular interest in who had the first service number (Who had the first Social Security Number? Betcha it wasn't "1". Do we have an article on them?), but the fact is that scholars and historians do have an interest in this individual. The result is that we have multiple reliable sources documenting elements of this person's service. If, as OberRanks indicates, there is additional information forthcoming, I see no need to delete this article. Per WP:AGF, I'd like to give some additional time to expand the article and find additional sources. I presume Major Ackerman is deceased, so there is no pressing BLP concern that comes into play. The bottom line, in my mind, is that the article is a stub, and I see no compelling reason to delete it without permitting time to expand it. If that means userfication, then so be it - but I view that as a secondary option. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Basic service information was faxed today from Quantico about his officer service and it raises some very interesting questions. His dates of service were 1915 - 1947, retired rank of Major mostly work in the Supply Depot/Quartermaster field. Enlisted/World War I service was 1915 - 1919 but this material is not available from the USMC - his enlisted record is at NPRC and would take about 3 months to get. It looks like he was NOT awarded the Silver Star but he was cited for bravery both in WWI and some amphib operations in the 1930s to Central America. His service #1 designation was becuase he was alphabetically first on the list when they turned on service numbers in 1920. I could expand this article, since I still feel being #1 in the system is very noteworthy insofar as military history is concerned, but apparently other people don't feel its noteworthy. I've asked for even more input on the USMC portal since I dont want to spend hours of work adding in all this new data only to have it be deleted. -OberRanks (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all respect, what you're doing here is original research. While this highly valuable, it can't be published on Wikipedia - we're limited to sources which have already been published under the policy Wikipedia:No original research. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Service summaries of military careers published by the Marine Corps Historical Society are not original research. In both this article and the other, the address of where to get them is clearly displayed. -OberRanks (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete. Insufficient references to meet notability, as none of them appear to be indepth enough to warrant notability with so few references. Furthermore, unless the individual was awarded any notable awards (thus he'd be covered under WP:ANYBIO), he falls under WP:BIO1E, therefore pertinent information should be merged into the article Service number (United States Marine Corps), and the rest should be deleted and replaced with a redirect. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima Flower Festival[edit]

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

Unnotable local festival. Fails WP:N. Purely sourced to festival website and appears to be more of an ad than anything else. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, just blog posts, local notes, and press releases. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Japanese version seems to have more sources than the English version. I don't have the language skills or the expertise to evaluate this, but it seems to me that if the topic meets the notability standard on ja.wikipedia, it probably should also on en.wikipedia. The artticle definitely needs work. Racepacket (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this has been running since 1977 with all these guest, I'm pretty sure it's notable. No lack of coverage either, example: [17]. It doesn't look like an ad at all, more like it was written by a local who visited it. AGF please. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no need to do any more than click on the searches linked above to see that there is significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per various criteria, and salted. Author(s) indefblocked as spam-only accounts. Wknight94 ^talk 17:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centigradz[edit]

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

repeatedly recreated SPAM article about non notable band, speedy removed by suspected sockpuppet of article creator. WuhWuzDat 15:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as speedy tagger of this incarnation. Salt per nom. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koala attacks in Australia[edit]

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

Disputed prod. lacks notability to sustain an article Gnan garra 15:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Gnan garra 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of a series of similar articles on animal attacks in Australia. Not as many as some of the others, but still worth noting because of the danger to koalas posed by dogs and the possible grain of truth to the drop bear myth. James4750 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that many humans stupidly think that because an animal is cute it's not going to attack them. Other animals are smarter. I recently witnessed my sister-in-law's 100 lb rottweiler defend her home from an attack by a 3 lb kitten (no violence took place). Borock (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just about any animal can attack any other. Two instances of koalas biting or scratching humans are cited. Records of dogs attacking koalas should be merged to "dog attack" article since they are off topic here where koalas need to be the attackers for it to be a "koala attack." So two instances don't add up to WP:Notability to me. Borock (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The information is of very questionable notability. At any rate, there's so little of it that it may as well be merged with the main Koala article. --Whoosit (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Bluebottle stings in Australia, Octopus attacks in Australia, and Stonefish attacks in Australia can also be deleted. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom the IMHO whole attack article collection needs to be reviewed as a whole. Satu Suro 21:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notability for a separate article (these issues could just be covered in Koala). Often unclear whether the creature attacked or was just defending itself - several of the other "$ANIMAL attacks in Australia" suffer from the same problem. --GenericBob (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial risk from koalas (bite, scratch), not notable. I eagerly await the sequel Platypus attacks in Australia. WWGB (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Orderinchaos 01:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The last time I held a koala it scratched me when I tried to put it down. They have sharp claws so that's what they do. It's not notable but, based on the apparent criteria for inclusion used in the article, my experience should probably be in there. I'm awaiting a sequel too, but it's Cat attacks in Australia. I've got photos for that one. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drop bear. PMSL. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 03:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that'd be good too. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Worth maybe a few lines in koala article, or Drop bear but that is it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem too notable. I found it interesting, but if they can only come up with two attacks, it just isn't notable, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely non-notable. Koalas can scratch and bite when threatened. They also pee on celebrities and tourists. Or maybe that is covered in another article. florrie 01:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't appear to be a very notable subject, since only two non-fatal documented "attacks" are cited. Warrah (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Koala Cynof Gavuf 10:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge i think a new article dedicated to Australian Wildlife attacks would be more appropriate, gets rid of this article, the kangaroo and magpie articles.Zoo Pro 12:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Clemens[edit]

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

Brief unsourced article about a "famous" English carpenter and furniture maker from the early 1800s. PRODded for lack of source or confirmation; PROD removed by author without comment. I have made searches (detailed on the article talk page) both on-line and in a good library, and can find no confirmation at all. This is probably a hoax, and certainly fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also failed in an online search. It's either a hoax, or somebody's great-great-grandfather that the furniture world failed to notice. MuffledThud (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any verifiable sources, even using alternate spelling. --Whoosit (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some good suggestions for merging and doing so would make a lot of sense IMHO. However, considering the size of both articles I think a standard "mergeto" request would be better then an AFD "merge" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Dick Grayson[edit]

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

This page consists almost exclusively of in-universe content with little or no real-world notability. PROD was contested. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Multiple paragraphs of this article are identical to paragraphs in Dick Grayson. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it does not consist only of plot. It talks about the development of a significant character over several long series of notable works, including material on the creation of the various series and the artists. This is one thing an encyclopedia can do, which is bring material like this together. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dick Grayson DGG, any comment about how this compares to the older article, Dick Grayson? I don't disagree with what you say about an article about a fictional character, but in this case, it's-been-done. Generally, the explanation for articles like this is that there has been an edit war, with Sheldon and Leonard arguing over who knows more about a comic book character. A merger of relevant material might be in order. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As DGG points out, this is not in-universe discussion, but instead a report of how the publisher has developed and marketed the very notable comic-book character. Some of the in-universe content needs pruning, sometimes heavy pruning, but the usefulness of this distinct article is substantial. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge to Dick Grayson. There is no difference between an article about a fictional character and an article about the fictional history of a fictional character, that I can see anyway. Nothing against either article, their editors, or their topic. Borock (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. An article on a fictional character is supposed to include stuff like the history of the character and development of the character. Trim it down and merge to the main article. The title also is odd, basically a fictional history of a fictional character. Does that mean it's not the real history of the character? TJ Spyke 18:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Declan Clam (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Weak Keep - I can see both sides of this. So either Dick Grayson should have a VERY short summary, with this page having all the detail; or this should be merged to Dick Grayson. - jc37 15:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- I agree with Jc37. Dick Grayson should either include all the info from the article, or a quite short summary with a link to it. This may in fact be the best solution. Anakinjmt (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the notability and size of the content. ArtistScientist (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonable fork of extremely long article. Agree that it could use a bit of pruning, tho. Ford MF (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 19:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Valentine[edit]

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

Prod removed with little improvement. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows etc. Tassedethe (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A MySpace page is not enough to establish notability for a performer. The IMDb page shows only one role in an as-yet-unreleased film and does not even provide enough information to confirm that this is the same person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rationale as above. --Whoosit (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is it just one film, but the film doesn't appear to be notable. IMDB lists the budgets of two of the directors previous films as $10,000 and $14,000. Neither the director nor the four leads have articles. --JamesAM (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the record, according to the the IMDb page about the film she was in it has now been released (otherwise, it would list it as "(Completed)" or "(In Production)"), so maybe the article is out of date—but whether or not the film has been released, it seems to be her only credit, and a role in a single obscure movie isn't nearly enough to make her notable. —Smeazel (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. NW (Talk) 01:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rugby World Cup[edit]

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

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

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Surprisingly enough, the Rubgy union powers-that-be have awarded a contract for the 2019 World Cup already, so an article on that topic is entirely appropriate. Everything in the articles about 2023 and 2027, however, is pure speculation that could not possibly be supported by reliable sources because such sources do not yet exist. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing at this point to say about either of these. Recreate when there are reliable sources discussing the world cups. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and page protect until there is something notable, reliable and verifiable to say. Completely agree with R'n'B's rationale about 2019. WFCforLife (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is, namely the hosting of 2019, and 2015 which will affect both of these RWCs. The IRB does plan ahead you know. At the rate we're going, we're not going to be allowed to write about next month.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need to go farther than actually contracted which is with three future events already farther than for many other sports. Anything new that is reliably sourced should actually first be added to Rugby World Cup and branched out once fit. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really? A article on a sports event that won't happen for 18 years (if it happens at all)? Way too prematures, per CRYSTABALL, maybe in 10 years. TJ Spyke 14:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above post by TJ Spyke was originally in a section referring to the 2027 event only.[18] I've modified the layout of this page to indicate that is one nom only for both articles. TJ, you may want to add a view on the 2023 event.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2023 for the same reason. TJ Spyke 18:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both When you have nothing to say, create a placeholder. The 2023 article is bad enough, but the 2027 Rugby World Cup? Which elementary schools are the future Australian national team members attending? Mandsford (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC):[reply]
This nom is about both, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I realized that as soon as I clicked on the other article. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both waaaaaaaay too early to start talking about either tournament. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no rush to make articles about tournaments that won't happen for 18 years. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - absolute rubbish to claim that nothing can be reliably said about 2023 RWC. The venue for the 2019 RWC has ALREADY been decided, and the venues of 2023, and 2027 will both be decided on the basis of the last three or four hosting nations. Most of you obviously don't know anything about rugby anyway.--MacRusgail (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC) p.s. Who comes up with corny terms like "Crystal" anyway? It would have made more sense to keep the future template on the article. Oh wait, some bureaucrat deleted that didn't they?[reply]

For what its worth I've been going to Saracens semi-regularly for ten years. On topic, nothing about 2023 can reliably be said. While it's reasonable to assume, the bidding process hasn't even begun, and its yet to confirmed that its even happening. Your sole justification for keeping the article is that we know where 2015 and 2019 are being held. Ingeniously, we have articles on 2015 and 2019, neither of which insult readers' knowledge of the sport. WFCforLife (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that, instead of offering reasons to support your views, you (MacRusgail) find it necessary to insult those who disagree with you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insulting anyone, I'm criticising bureaucratic stupidity. True, not much can be said about either of these RWCs - but I'm not exactly reading tarot cards here, or looking into a crystal ball. You don't need divination, you just look at the past record of the International Rugby Board, which alternates venues between the northern and southern hemispheres, and has been doing that since the first RWC over twenty years ago. Unfortunately, some numptie went and deleted the future event tag without bothering to consult many people, so that's out of the window too. Very clever.

By the way, WFC, if you are going to Saracens games, then I respect your opinion more than that of all the non-rugby fans here combined. But I did say most of the people voting here don't know anything about it, other than the dates of the events - and that I really can't respect. I've already had to stop some Argentine editor from deleting various international tours to Argentina as "non-notable" - I wish people would do their research first.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2027, Keep 2023 - simply that if people are speculating on something, the speculation itself is surely worthy of an article. I mean, we have 2020 Summer Olympics, 2018 Winter Olympics, 2018 FIFA World Cup, UEFA Euro 2016 and UEFA Euro 2020 articles. Yes, I know my argument is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFF but on the other hand, if speculation is rife, should that not itself warrant an article? --Tris2000 (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source concerning speculation about a 2023 World Cup? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the hosting records of the RWC going back over twenty years! --MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is used far too often, far too dismissively, and generally by people who would rather hide behind a policy than discuss the merits of their arguments (which in itself is against policy). You raise a reasonable question about other sports. Taking each example in turn:

2020 Summer Olympics has official confirmation from many of the potential applicants that they will be bidding for the 2020 Olympics. Parts of it are a bit trivial for my tastes, but it makes a much stronger case than the 2023 RWC.
The 2018 Winter Olympics bidding process is officially underway, with the candidate cities confirmed.
It's a very similar story for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, with the candidates officially announced, and an official process underway.
Again, UEFA Euro 2016 has a concrete bidding process underway.
Finally, UEFA Euro 2020. If I had my way I would delete it. But putting that to one side, the Bulgarian and Romanian bid is sourced to some extent. I've got know way of telling whether the sources are speculative or official, but even if they're speculative it's still more than the 2023 Rugby has. WFCforLife (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for going to the trouble of commenting on these. You've given it more thought than I have, so I'm beginning to be persuaded that perhaps both rugby ones could be deleted after all. Tris2000 (talk) 10:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With sentences such as "It is speculated that South Africa, Ireland and Scotland (joint), Australia, Italy, Argentina and possibly the United States and Russia may bid to host the event" and "The chances of a South American bid are very strong given that..." pretty much mark this for me as a clear WP:CRYSTAL case. Once some more specific information is determined, then sure, by all means create this. But so little has been specifically and unequivocally determined at this point. Let some time pass for certain aspects of this event to be confirmed. After, there is no deadline. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ali (footballer born 1990)[edit]

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

~~Contested PROD. I believe this player fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league, and youth caps do not confer notability) and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am happy that this player meets WP:ATHLETE, following new research from Bettia, so I would like to withdraw the nomination. Giant Snowman 12:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has yet to play a first-team professional match for his club side. As GiantSnowman says, U20 caps don't confer notability. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Youth caps don't confer notability and there is no evidence he passes WP:GNG Spiderone 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of new evidence, i'm changing my vote to Keep. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A 19-year-old soccer player making WP:ATHLETE standards would be a rare occurance. No secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No it isn't. To pass Wp:ATHLETE (and particularly the football one), you need to make an appearance for a club in a professional league. In England, that's the top four divisions. And there's a number of players in those leagues - and particularly Leagues 1 and 2 - that were born in the 1990s. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails Wp:ATHLETE. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep, since he's made an appearance in the UAE league, which is fully-professional, therefore passing Wp:ATHLETE. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article notes that he plays for Al-Wahda FC, which is in the premier division of UAE Football League, that is listed as a fully-professional league. Are we sure that he hasn't started for them? It's hard to find line-ups for this league in English; can anyone speak Arabic? Nfitz (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Nfitz says, the UAE league is fully professional, and this match report confirms that he has played at this level. Bettia (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per details above showing that he has played in a fully-professional league. 8lgm (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good catch Bettia; I must have spent half-an-hour trying to find something like that; the adjectives I found in Gulf papers describing his U20 performance seemed to hint that he was playing, but were inconclusive. Nfitz (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per match report above Steve-Ho (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:ATHLETE as he has appeared for a fully professional team in a fully professional league. Infobox should be updated. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domini Homes[edit]

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

Non notable company - no indication of why it should be on Wikipedia. noq (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - non-notable local firm. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete ((db-corp)) was removed by author, and it seems to meet the criteria Chzz ► 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, "Local retailers and service merchants (franchises or individually owned) are generally not acceptable, with exceptions, including first-of-a-kind businesses (e.g. the first motel), those centered around a major historical event, or tourist attractions." Domini Homes created the first MLS in the Middle East. --Sxcfre (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only first claimed - without any source - is they are aiming to be first MLS in the middle east. There is no indication they have achieved that. noq (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IYY (software)[edit]

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

Article about non-notable software - first release was less than a month ago. No references that meet WP's requirements. Fails WP:N and WP:VER andy (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN, if the authors show V, N, RS, later, I can change my opinion. Miami33139 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. no reason for keeping; we have a way of doing school projects, and it consists of assistance in first finding notable subjects. It is t onobody's benefit to permit articles that do not meet our requirements when there are so many genuine gaps in coverage. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uptown Consignment[edit]

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

Prod removed by author with following comments: This is a school project could you please wait a week or two before you delete it. I am not finnished and it still needs to be graded. Pinkprincess14 (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Original Prod reasoning: Non-notable company. Claims of notability (Hartford Advocate and Hartford Magazine awards) cannot be verified, and would not likely meet notability standards anyway. I can not find any reliable sources that indicate this is a notable company. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per original prod reasoning. I have contacted the author and pointed out the guidelines for school projects, including the fact that even as a school project, the article still needs to meet inclusion criteria. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any indication of notability. Google only reveals directory and company profile listings. DB 103245 ^talk 17:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I located two features in the Hartford Courant, along with 20-odd brief mentions in "where to buy cheap back-to-school clothes" stories and one article about a customer performing CPR on a lady there once. I added them as citations in the article, for what that's worth, which isn't really a lot. Wasn't able to verify Hartford Advocate, Hartford Magazine, or Rare Reminder. Of those three, Hartford Magazine might make it as a reliable source, but the other two are local free entertainment/shopper rags, so no. I guess I added the citations less in an attempt to establish notability and more in the hopes that the author will at least see a little bit of the process before the article goes away. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CORP. Warrah (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German Martinez Hidalgo[edit]

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

Non-notable, unreferenced bio -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established.--Karljoos (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is not an academic scientist: I cannot find anyone of that name in Web of Science, including all backfiles. He appears to be a columnist in what is a major Mexican newspaper, and that can be verified in Google easily enough: [19] More to the point of notability, there's a third party obit from what seems a reliable source independent : [El Sol de Puebla], which discusses a conference and exhibition in his honor. There's also a very long obit in a left-wing magazine: [20] and a mention in one in english [21] . I almost didn't try, because I assumed Google wouldn't have anything. There are even 2 in google News [22]. I think a equivalent US columnist might be accepted. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. From article at the National Institute of Astrophysics, Optics and Electronics website, he appears to have been "Director de [Escuela] Normal Superior del Estado de Puebla" and to have founded the Instituto Tecnológico de Puebla.[23] google translation. The article suggests that this is a pseudonym, this doesn't seem correct as the ref above describes his parentage. Although I couldn't find any either, academic publications may exist under some slightly different name. John Z (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Erroneous Google translation. The Spanish source does not claim that he founded the Instituto Tecnológico de Puebla. Only that he was a professor at the time it was founded ("maestro fundador"). There were actually several people who were in this position (List of "personal fundador" at the ITPuebla website). CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I rewrote the article improving grammar and correcting some information based on the sources I found. As John Z discovered, his name is not a pseudonym, at least as far as his last names are concerned. Also, according to the obituaries he was born in the state of Puebla, Mexico, so I changed that as well. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willard's Canteen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Willard's Canteen

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

No real claim of notability or significant ghits for this one-man band. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Cargoking talk 10:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no credible assertion of notability currently in the article and can't find any sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8. Also full protecting this for a good while, as it has been recreated several times now. NW (Talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced WP:CRYSTAL. Appears to be a recreation of an article deleted twice due to the same reason. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it fits WP:CRYSTAL, and has been deleted twice already. Maybe when we actually hear of Windows 8... Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 06:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about this, but is WP:SALT an option? I mean, we may end up with many AfDs for this, but then again, it would be against WP:PILLAR in doing so. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It needs something done. Over-excited people will rush in and re-create this article continually, I expect. — This, that, and the other [talk] 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — This, that, and the other [talk] 07:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. There isn't even a ref. Cargoking talk 09:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Staberinde (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's wait until it's announced. MutantMonkey (talk | contribs) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect from recreation - Recreated too many times already. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 16:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you search google for windows 8, you will see lots of results talking about it. --Moonwolf14 (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Google#Notability. Just because a search term has a lot of hits on Google does not mean it automatically has notability. I think that it may have a lot of hits because some of the tech blogs that I've been reading are speculating about what might be included—speculation alone isn't cause for an article. talking birds 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as unsourced WP:CRYSTAL. Windows 7 was released only a few days ago, for heaven's sake. talking birds 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete and salt Windows 7 just came out; WP:CRYSTAL. I'm a Mac but that's immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can the "salting" be done for a limited amount of time, like a few months, in the event the new windows comes out, so someone doesn't have to ask permission to start the article then. Cynof Gavuf 18:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has next to no content and is just speculation. I'm in agreement with almost everyone else: Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE: Delete and salt until some credible information about Win8 is produced.--Michaelkourlas (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You call this not credible??? at-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wp:CRYSTAL, and serve with salt - I can see this coming up time and again if we don't. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete - if we don't delete this article then we will just keep coming around again in a time loop--Logan (talk)
Delete- There is no official announcement yet.76.102.32.59 (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should we go ahead and call Snowball? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It is too early to create "Windows 8" article. Maybe move the portion of the article to History of Windows or something else. -- BWCNY (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have voted delete if Windows 7 hadn't already been released, but now that it has, Microsoft should have Windows 8 in development so that some info can be found. Georgia guy (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice: it is too soon for Windows 8 to have its own article, as many above have noted. It can be brought back once there is an official announcement from Microsoft or something of the like, at least some information on development. Until then, salt sounds like a good idea due to the likelihood of re-creation before that time. Cliff smith ^talk 17:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further thinking, redirect to History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8 and protect the redirect until there's enough information for a separate article. This is somewhat analogous to a new album from a musician or a new film in a franchise—keep it at the main page until it can be properly spun off. Cliff smith ^talk 15:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Existing content is way too small and speculative. --Natural R_X 22:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8. Please don't salt this redirect. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8. There will invariably be more verifiable info, just not enough to warrant an article yet. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep~~, maybe Redirect~~ This article has few facts, however, it tells us a little about what is expected in Windows 8. Do not salt. It will create a headache to recreate it when Bill Gates organizes a press conference. EDIT: see [24]. It has some info that could be added. A google search brings up some websites with valuable information. at-210 ^{discovered elements ∞ what am I?} 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, this isn't really a situation where a speedy keep could happen. Cliff smith ^talk 15:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. However, I would oppose salting for more than six months. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Agree with above commenter that it shouldn't be salted for more than a few months. --Resplendent (talk)

Delete It is not the time for this article. I think that this article should be create no sooner than will be enough information about Windows 8. Perhaps it will be in 2010 or 2011... Live is here today! James Michael 1 (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Let it be recreated when there is an official confirmation of developement. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a reader, the launch of Windows 7 led me to reading articles about Windows' history and this led me to look at Windows 8 to see what was known as yet. Even if the answer to that is "little", that in itself is information for the reader. It's logical for users to look for that article, increasingly so over time, so it is as easy to keep it tidy as to keep it deleted. Andy Farrell (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Brown (athlete)[edit]

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

Not competed at a sufficiently high level for inclusion1 Chris (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see where it meets WP:N. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 06:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence he meets notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he never reached the highest level of amateur sports and there isn't significant coverage of him in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous voter, since he fails the amateur athlete criterion of competing at the highest level in his sport. He retired at age 20, so that doesn't establish much of a record. Although the remark about most promising athletic prospect is interesting, it's uncited, attributed to an unnamed coach, and supposed was said on one youth sports TV program. If there was an extremely high level of media coverage (i.e. the level of coverage that LeBron James got when he was in high school), then I could see the case for a special exception. But in this case, the one uncited TV program isn't even remotely close to LeBron James level hype. --JamesAM (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscure amateur athlete with no claim of notability. -Drdisque (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold friending[edit]

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

Neologism sourced to a blog. 16 Google hits, nothing on Gnews. I couldn't find a speedy delete criterion for neologisms, unfortunately. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (ec) Not notable term. An old discussion about neologisms as a speedy deletion category is here. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NEO. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it was an established expression it still would not merit an encyclopedia article, rather than a dictionary entry. Borock (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO DRosin (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article even denotes itself as a neologism -Drdisque (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's snowball time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We do not have consensus that the guideline should be applied in this instance. Sandstein 09:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red-billed[edit]

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

Another dab page with no valid entries and no obvious redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is useful and perfectly acceptable. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid entries? Ridernyc (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:DAB#Partial title matches comes under "What not to include". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DAB#Partial title matches. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I think this is useful, and personally find it acceptable for an encyclopedia, but we have to stick to policy. Per Alan Liefting, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 11:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments regarding the above. First, I am not convinced that WP:DAB#Partial title matches does apply. The examples given are rather different. Many of the entries could just be called "a red-billed" if the context was clear. Someone who missed the context could look it up on WP and this page would be useful. Second, that page is not policy; it is a guideline. If it is useful and encyclopedic, them ignore all rules and that is policy. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These types of disambiguation pages have already been discussed here and here. The result of both discussions was keep. Neelix (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for finding articles, and that's all that a dab page is expected to be. Guidelines by their nature allow for exceptions when it help[s the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful to aviod confusion among bird watchers. No one else will be bothered by the page. Borock (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page does what a search on "red billed" would give only a search would be more up to date. This page would have to be maintained in order to keep it up to date and there is no guarantee of that. With this page in existence a search for the term will bring it up as the search result. All the other terms that the reader may be looking for and are not on this page will not be presented. WP is here to serve the readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Such an argument could be made about many different types of disambiguation pages. Using the bare search simply results in a haphazard list of articles spread, in this case, across two long pages of results. Instead, this disambiguation page presents all the entries succinctly and alphabetically on one page without any required scrolling. Bare search results are not preferable to organized disambiguation pages. The main point is that these birds are all referred to simply as "red-billed" by birders in certain circumstances, so this page page should exist to disambiguate. Neelix (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. speedy/snow deleting. tedder (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Blades[edit]

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

Not notable enough, methinks Chris (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As Non Notable. I love how the author adds the hangon tag in the creation, that should tell you something. Not a neutral POV either.--SKATER ^Speak. 05:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, they added hangon right away because they were reposting after a prior speedy. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Maybe an Australian can suggest whether or not this person is notable in Australia. However, the article is hopelessly poorly written, has no citations, and would need a complete rewrite. hulmem (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sourced notability per WP:MUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of his facebook and elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kubly[edit]

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

Not sure if any of this is enough to pass notability. His Bands have been ISSMA rated, performed in a few parades. Don't see anything notable. Ridernyc (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N quick search turned up no sources.--SKATER ^Speak. 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distillers in Canada[edit]

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

Delete. As the article stands it does not add anything to WP. An Alcohol in Canada article would be a better, related idea and such a series of articles already exists. See Category:Alcohol by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC) New, don't delete. It started as a stub, but I have added quite a bit to it already in its first hour or two. I created the page because there wasn't a liquor equivalent of Beer in Canada and Canadian wine when I added those links to Prohibition in Canada#Alcohol production in Ontario. I agree the Alcohol in Canada article should be created, but that is a very large topic that wouldn't have much room for this topic. The template "Alcoholic beverages in" the Alcoholic beverages template shows that none of the 30 or so countries in North America have an "Alcohol in" article, including no Alcohol in the United States (although they should probably all be written at some point), except for Canada's which is only about consumption. We could call it Spirits in Canada or Liquor in Canada, but those are both problematic in that "spirits" has other meanings and "liquor" is sometimes considered as alcohol in general. I don't like Distilling in Canada either, not specific enough to the liquor industry. Facts707 (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Alan, your page says you are from New Zealand. Alcohol in New Zealand refers to the two articles Beer in New Zealand and New Zealand wine, but there is nothing for distillers. Do you know if the New Zealand distillers are mentioned somewhere else? Also Alcoholic beverages in New Zealand does not exist. If there is some naming convention or something that I am missing, please fill me in. Facts707 (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my afd nomination. Yes, there are all sorts of alcohol articles that need to be written. It seems that editors create WP articles with a bottom up approach. This is not a criticism of editors, I cannot criticise those who are helping to create an encyclopaedia as volunteers, but it is a systemic bias inherent in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator. The article has improved and now has merit as a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. Siriwardene[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH. The article does not have the full name of the player. He played a single match of cricket for a first-class team (at least, the opponents were first-class). Cmprince (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lack of details is not a reason to delete as these may be forthcoming when further research is done. The fact that Siriwardene played a first-class match means that he does pass the WP:Notability test per WP:Athlete and WP:CRIN. The source quoted is entirely reliable for cricket statistics. Furthermore, Kandy Cricket Club was definitely a first-class club in 1992–93 when Siriwardene was playing: see CricketArchive for list of first-class matches that season. Kandy play (or did play) at the Asgiriya Stadium, a Test venue in Sri Lanka. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Per BlackJack.--SKATER ^Speak. 06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN. SGGH ^ping! 08:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Played first class cricket. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN. Harrias (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets notability requirements in WP:CRIN. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played first class cricket, passes WP:ATH/WP:CRIN. -SpacemanSpiff 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There was a Champika Siriwardene playing top-level school cricket in Kandy a couple of years before this article subject's first-class "career"[25], so I suspect that that is the same person. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fredric J. Harris[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass bio notability. JaGa^talk 02:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holds a named chair, the CUBIC Signal Processing Chair of the Communication Systems and Signal Processing Institute. Google Scholar reports that his article "On the use of windows for harmonic analysis with the discrete Fourier transform" is cited by 2271 other publications. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Top GS cites are 2271, 213, 52, 46, 45.... with h index = 12. I suggest that this passes on WP:Prof #1 due to first paper. Also has named chair as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep meets WP:PROF in several different ways: his chair, citations to his work, his textbooks. Details & refs need to be added, but that';s straightforward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Keep. It has already been demonstrated that he passes WP:PROF #1 (research impact), #5 (the named chair), and that he likely passes #4 (the textbooks) and #7 (his work in signal processing has significant practical applications). But he also passes #3 (he was elected as an IEEE Fellow in 2003) and #8 (he is co-editor-in-chief of Digital Signal Processing). Only one of these criteria is needed, so this is a keep six times over. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a puzzle why this article was slated for AfD. Would the nominator care to expand on his reasons? If not, I suggest a speedy keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above - Can we get WP:SNOW here? Ray^Talk 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upendra Tripathy[edit]

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

Terrible resume article, doesn't appear to pass notability, but I'll put it here to verify the Joint Secretary position doesn't qualify as notable. JaGa^talk 01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. He's a senior (non-elected) government official, and this Google News archive search shows a lot of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Weak because I cannot reallly judge the positions, or the distinction of the awards. I removed most of the extraneous material. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Prime Minister's Award for Excellence in Public Administration, which, usually being awarded to only six people per year in a country of over a billion,[26] passes WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Son[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Young son

Articles for deletion/Young Son™

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

I fail to see how this artist satisfies WP:MUSIC... he's unsigned, has no charted hits, has no non trivial, secondary sources, he hasn't gone on a major international tour, his singles aren't in any major radio station's rotation, and the author (judging by his username and that the majority of his contributions are related to Young Son) has a likely conflict of interest. Additionally, save for his one studio album, his other releases are either red-linked or redirect back to Young Son. He has been nominated for several local awards of questionable notability.

I am also nominating his album:

2 says you, says two 01:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no non-trivial sources, dubious awards at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only credible article I can find on him, this one establishes him as non-notable. I also recommend that we roll in his album, Soul Inspired-Hip Hop's Revival into this AFD. -Drdisque (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It already is part of it. Amalthea 21:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, should've seen that -Drdisque (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. From the vote count, this seems like an easy keep. However, a large potion of the comments are not particularly strong. Several of the votes simply assert that the subject is notable, or point to a Google News search and say that establishes notability. However, there are a few keep votes are quite strong and back up their views with specific links and evidence. My analysis of the discussion lends me to weigh those votes heavily enough to close this as keep. NW (Talk) 18:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gina de Venecia[edit]

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

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

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

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

Article about a non-notable person. User234 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three honorary doctorates is a serious indication of notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do honorary doctorates estabilish notability? Are those honorary doctorates themselves notable awards, as set forth by WP:ANYBIO? I would argue that they are not, in and of themselves. If that were the case, any one who gets an honorary doctorate for any commencement speech at any higher level educational institution would be notable and thus be eligable for an article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- and see also this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep. It its current state the article needs additional references to establish notability via WP:BIO. Position as Speaker of House of Representatives, would make notable, however, with verification as it stands now it is not going to stand. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. MikeHobday (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I haven't read the article as a whole, but Gina de Vencia is not only former House Speaker of the Philippines' wife, but she is also a Filipino actress. That makes her notable.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 07:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an actress does she meet the criterea set forth in WP:ENT? She doesn't even have an entry in IMDB from what I can find. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per everyone. Gina De Venecia is notably here in the Philippines. She supported her husband during the 1998 Presidential election on her husband's bid as presidential candidate.ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind to Strong Delete, as the article stands as of this posting. Being married to someone who is notable doesn't make that individual notable themselves; see WP:BIO#Invalid criteria and WP:NOTINHERITED. The book referenced only mentions her by name three times. Furthermore, the other article referenced is actually this article, which allows you to read the entire article. In it the subject of the article is named twice, and the main topic of it isn't the subject of the article that is AFD'd but a program of a foundation which the subject is a part of. Therefore, neither of can be considered in depth of the subject, and because there isn't additional references, it fails the primary criterea set forth in WP:BIO. Furthermore, the external links are primary sources, or at best not considered usable for verifiability as they fall under WP:SPS. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are 2 pages of search results in Google Books good enough? –Howard the Duck 14:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at all the books, not of them would be considered in depth, there could arguably be considered multiple independent sources; however, it is debatable how much each of them move beyond "trivial" in accordance with WP:BIO#Basic criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has hosted a TV program (but I forgot the title and it doesn't have an article), that was based on a long-running radio program that she hosted too. Does that count? –Howard the Duck 16:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would count, and would mean that she would meet part 1 of WP:ENT, depending on the size of her roll in said program. However, it needs to be referenced via a verifiable reliable source. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the size of her roll is uh... large. She changes actors and actresses and plot every week (the staff and crew might be constant). That's the style of her program. The thing is it's not my cup of tea and I still can't remember it. But if that's the case, she's notable. –Howard the Duck 04:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard, you mean Pira-pirasong Pangarap? --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if that's not it. I can't remember or look for it since she doesn't have an IMDB entry. Remember, she's like the Korina Sanchez of the olden days, one of the reasons why JDV married her is to be known nationally. It worked, and still works. Just ask Ralph Recto and Francis Pangilinan. –Howard the Duck 06:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has she had a "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", per WP:ENT? I have found five references to her and the show mentioned by Tito Pao. However, unless she has had significant roles in other notable media, listed in the quote above that they themselves meet notability requirements, she so far still doesn't meet notability per WP:ENT. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Honorary doctorates from established universities would normally establish notability--they should be considereed as a major award. I'm not 100% sure though in this sort of political setting. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How "major" are these universities? GVSU in my home town is "established" (it's been around a while, it grants thousands of degrees a year) but I don't think an honorary doctorate from there establishes notability. Harvard, probably. Michigan State University, maybe. Central Michigan University? Probably not. GVSU? Not. ++Lar: t/c 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: to Howard. I believe her show was something like Manay Gina de Venecia, or Nagmamahal, Manay Gina de Venecia.

I think it was "Pira-pirasong Pangarap" but I'm not convinced that it was the title. I thought it was something else. But evidence points to that direction. –Howard the Duck 17:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: to RightCowLeftCoast. I'll appreciate if AFD discussions are only discussed/redirected here, to reach a consensus.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you want all discussions to continue here, however my attempt was not move the discussion off this project page, but to solicit those users to return to the discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing enough substantial coverage to show notability here, and I do not believe that the honorary doctorates mentioned are notable either. Kevin (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you really not seeing any substantial coverage amongst the 284 Google News results linked above, many of which have the subject's name in the title? Or are you not looking? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of "wife of..." type coverage. Not substantial enough to warrant an article, IMO. Kevin (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than half of those articles don't even mention her husband. Unless there is some rule here that women can only be regarded as wives or mothers then it would seem that Gina is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: to RightCowLeftCoast. As you wrote in my talk page about Gina De Venecia, she is a wife of a politician and had two children (Chris and KC), KC was died in a fire back less than five years ago, just days after Fernando Poe, Jr.'s tragic death. The cause was a fire spread in her room and trapped until fire begins to kill her. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunate, but that doesn't make her notable. As I have stated, there are multiple ways a subject for an article to be considered notable. As an actress, she can fall under WP:ENT. So far she has not meet part one of WP:ENT as it has been stated that she has had a significant roll in only a single Television program, which itself is not notable. Furthermore, neither have been verified by a reliable source. The other criteria that she can be considered notable is via WP:ANYBIO. Now it has been argued that her honorary doctorates establish notability in and of themselves. However, from what I have gotten feedback from the reliable source noticeboard, those honorary degrees do not make her notable themselves, but can contribute to her overall notability. Others have argued that because she is a wife of a notable politician or have X number of google hits, should make the individual notable; however, those are not criteria for notability, see WP:BIO#Invalid_criteria.

Given the two references that are presently on the article, and the external links provided, those that are not primary sources, or fall under WP:SPS, would IMHO fall under trivial coverage of the individual, as the majority focus is on the organization which she is (or was) a head of. That being said her organization under WP:CLUB, is probably notable, however that doesn't automatically mean that she is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Given the honorary degrees and her work as a television host, I suspect that the main problem finding further sourcing for ENT or BIO is due to the language barrier. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what language barrier there is? English is the standard language within most professional circles in the Philippines, and from what I am aware of, most (if not all) news media is conducted in both English and Filipino, this being due to the fact that English and Filipino are two that are nationwide, whereas each area/province/island group has their own unique language that is used mainly locally. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's received bucket loads of press in the Phillippines in her own right,[27] including a potential run for congress,[28] being part of a human rights delegation to detained soldiers,[29] and TV and radio work[30] including an award-winning drama show.[31] She's not even close to being non-notable.

Fences&Windows 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is notable. She appears in the news regularly.Samito1050(talk) 03:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22 Marsh Wall[edit]

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

Notability. Just another tall residential building in the Docklands with no significant contribution to the city or architecture. Not relevant as work of a prominent architect. Karljoos (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is non-notable you might want to consider listing the bulk of this category for deletion. RMHED 00:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this skyscraper. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: added to http://london.wikia.com/wiki/22_Marsh_Wall. Ikip (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep London is so goddamn flat that any skyscraper is notable. Still better hunt down some refs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cas? How can you say that? It's not flat at all, it has ~~1000s~~ (well quite a few) of skyscrapers. Giano (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no reason to delete this. There's a reference to it, possibly a section on it, on p. 185 of London High by Herbert Wright, but google books won't let me see that page. Possibly someone else will be able to see it, because editors in different countries have variable access. See here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the link but can't access that page either, its probably a one-page summary based on book format. Apparently, it is "an excellent investment proposition."[32]. But the list of tallest buildings and structures in London lists this at #16, and most all of the top 40 have their own articles (really!). Some more cites would be nice.--Milowent (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its height gives it notability as one of the tallest buildings in the city & even more so that London is a landscape still remarkably (and thankfully) devoid of skyscrapers save for two very small clusters - one in EC1 and one on the Isle of Dogs. Nancy ^talk 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's notable and quite a nice building too. I've seen it. Could do with some references though. Giano (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Centre Point is a listed building and has been part of the skyline of London for over 40 years, Norman Foster's 8 Canada Square (aka HSBC Building) is the second tallest building in the UK and 30 St Mary Axe has changed the skyline of the City. I can see the notability and merit of these two buildings. On the other hand One Park Place, 22 Marsh Wall and Pan Peninsula are all buildings with no architectural relevance, not designed by a renowned architect, and aren't even finished(!!). Why should they have an article? Just because they're tall?--Karljoos (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple of sources which state that it is one of Europe's tallest residential buildings (notability), and that it has already won two awards in 2007 (more notability). I think the basic threshold for notability is met, and it only now needs expanding, which is not an issue for AfD. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting The Landmark won a prize in 2007, when the building didn't exist (according to the article). The world of prizes and awards is always interesting. Please visit List of tallest buildings in Europe--Karljoos (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on improvements to article since my last comment, I favor keeping.--Milowent (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability is assured by being in top 20 tallest buildings in London, and furthermore it's won a couple of prestigious awards. Tris2000 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Hieda[edit]

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

Doesn't seem sufficiently notable. Rd232 ^talk 23:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication she meets notability guidelines. no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MuffledThud (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note information copied to: http://commercials.wikia.com/wiki/Chelsea_Hieda Ikip (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "She very well could be one of the best humanitarian in the making." Need we say more? --Milowent (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikole Churchill[edit]

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

Delete notability: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports.... to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E)." Riphamilton (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Whoosit (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2009

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

Keep:::Nikole Churchill is notable as the first white woman to represent a traditionally black university as homecoming queen and beauty contest winner. Even more so because of the public outrage of some of the black students and alumni. Especially when a notable number of people walked out of the pageant when the winner was announced. Perhaps it is the event that is most notable, but it is through an article about the person that the story can be told. Natwebb (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

notability: The Facts of the Article are Accurate and is verifiable through not only the Hampton university Records of the Pageant, but in the numerous news accounts and other archival records that are easily checked. What is in dispute here and what people want to erase or change is the historical fact of what is written in the 2nd article of the controversy caused by her winning the Pageant and where some did not want a "White" woman to win and felt that she was intruding on sacred ground. In response to this Miss Churchill wrote a controversal letter to President Obama asking for his assistance because of his influance with the University itself. In this letter are some comments she took out of context and caused more controversy. Again. All of this is historical facts not subject to change because it is impossible to change history. But there are some who want to erase history and this must be prevented at any costs. The Nazi's did this, the Soviets did this, as have other dictitorial agencies who do not want notariety of particular events especially when it involves insulting or invading their personal bias or beliefs. Nikole Churchill succeeded in creating a point in history that is notable in that she broke a race barrier that may seem insignificant today but might or might not become celebrated as a major changing point in history. Just as it was with a black woman who refused to sit in the back of the bus, which at the time was insignificant but took decades to realize that, staged or not, the event was a point where history was made. "To demand deletion of an article of an historic event simply because one or two "Dissenters" do not like the subject is totally uncalled for. The 1st Black President is a historic event. The 1st White Beauty Pageant winner in a predominantly black contest is a historic event, just as it would be if turned around, a Black pageant winner in a predominantly White contest is a historic event. Bias comes in many forms, one of the most henious is one of 'Changing or deleting History'" Rudeseal (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2009

DO NOT Delete

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to editors user's page. Ikip (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note text copied to: http://wikipopuli.com/wiki/index.php?title=Nikole_Churchill Ikip (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm suprised more people haven't chimed in on this one. The event is notable whether it is covered here (i choose to ignore to BLP1E chorus hiding in the wings) or elsewhere on the project.--Milowent (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being known for just the one thing means the biography should be deleted. Kevin (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E article. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See my above comment!Natwebb (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of The Harveyville Fun Times![edit]

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

Self-published book of unclear notability; 65 "unique" Google results, all booksellers and blogs. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Text copied to http://thebookthing.wikia.com/wiki/The_Best_of_The_Harveyville_Fun_Times Ikip (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet notability requirements. Dragoneer (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have you never heard of Casper the Friendly Ghost, Richie Rich, or the others? They had their own movies made, plus long running comics and cartoon series. This is a reprint of these notable series, and if it was a bestseller, then of course its notable. See how many blue links there are for the comics collected in it? A bestselling history book covering popular long running comic book characters. Dream Focus 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that a book discusses notable comics characters does not mean that the book itself is necessarily notable. This article claims that the book was a bestseller, but no sources have been provided to back up that assertion. The book title does not generate any Google News Archive hits at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published book with no important reviews or media coverage. The article's claim that the book inspired a touring museum exhibit might tip things over to Keep, but that statement is not referenced or independently confirmed. Warrah (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'll do some digging through Journals, but I think it might be plausible to create instead an article on The Harveyville Fun Times!, which has been mentioned in a peer reviewed journal and looks to have been mentioned in a couple of books. I'll have to see what I can turn up elsewhere. Otherwise, can we push it to the incubator or user space? Hiding T 16:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 16:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hiding. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Merge and then redirect to Mark Arnold (comic book and animation historian). The guy has created several articles about himself and his self-published books—I'm not sure he or they are notable, but at a minimum, it makes sense to have one article instead of multiple stubs. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the book's subject does not make the book itself notable. There is no evidence provided that the book is a best-seller, nor could I find any; moreover, the fact that it was published by Lulu implies that it was self-published (see the Lulu article for more). I appreciate your argument, Dreamfocus, but I'm not convinced. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 72 Google hits is pretty poor showing. Abductive (reasoning) 01:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. The topic it covers is notable, the book itself is not. Lulu Press is the same thing as saying "self published". Ford MF (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenlifestyle[edit]

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

non-notable organization Timergain (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've found an article at the website of The Embassy of The Republic of Indonesia, Washington, D.C. and another article in The Jakarta Post. The organization is mentioned also in a weekend magazine Kontan Weekend. Unfortunately I can't search results in Indonesian language. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Used 2 of the references suggested by Vejvančický to strengthen the third-party references for the Greenlifestyle article. I want to ask the community if it would be preferable if this article was entitled Greenlifestyle (Community) to avoid ambiguity.--Madun (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agile platform[edit]

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

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

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

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

Promotion for non-notable software product by SPA. No reliable sources. Partly a copyright infringement of [33]. Haakon (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Haakon (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious advertising: a complete software development and management solution targeted at building web business applications and web sites, in a field where every bit player thinks they rate an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Agile software development is perhaps worth considering. —Korath (Talk) 21:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Removed obvious advertising. --Tiago simoes (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: — Tiago simoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That's good, but does nothing to demonstrate the notability of the product. Haakon (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove adjectives to make content objective. --Mozzello (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this be non-notable? Does it require more external independent sources?--Tiago simoes (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, notability has to be demonstrated with appropriate sources. See the general notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability. Haakon (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several reports on the Agile Platform by analysts, reviewers and blogers (Gartner, Ovum, TechRepublic, Forrester Research, etc...). Would these need to be in the article? --Tiago simoes (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].--93.102.35.201 (talk) 10:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: — 93.102.35.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added more independent sources (Gartner, Nucleus Research and Butler Group) with detailed reviews of the Agile Platform, to comply with the General Notability Guideline (Mozzello), 15:08, 20 October 2009 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced. Developer isn't notable, either. Alexius08 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Coverage and awards suggest notability.--Michig (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has copyvio origins, is still a spammy mess of corporatespeak. Would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic, so despite probable passage of WP:N, I still !vote to delete, in the spirit of G11: even if the spam is not blatant, it is pervasive to such a degree that it completely undermines the possibility of writing a decent article. If kept, this article should be radically pared, and the exposition section written in a way that uses fewer buzzwords and actually gives a clue what the software is for. Ray^Talk 23:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Agile Platform is listed in this article Comparison of business integration software, next to several other products and companies like iBOLT or openadaptor, and when comparing the content of the Agile Platform article with these I really don't understand why it is being tagged as "a spammy mess of corporatespeak". I would like to understand what content is effectively needed to turn this article into an accepted article for Wikipedia, since my objective when I created it was to describe this product from an independent and non-biased perspective and not as an online marketing piece. Mozzello 14:47, 28 October 2009 (GMT)
- — Mozzello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irish goodbye[edit]

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

This has been mentioned in a few blogs (the two linked at the bottom and I think one more) but it's not an expression that has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Prod removed. Prezbo (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this is not a notable phrase, from what I can see, and the current piece is just a dicdef. If someone can find better sources, say from here, or yonder, then I would change my mind. It is somewhat derogatory. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: can't stand on its own. Alexius08 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an Irish Wikipedian, I cannot see its purpose. Cargoking talk 10:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 he fails WP:ATHLETE, and the keep arguments have provided no other evidence that he would pass WP:GNG or another notability guideline. Kevin (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrett Lee[edit]

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

Article concerning a back-up quarterback in college football without significant notability. TM 22:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability guidelines. --bender235 (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject currently fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Coverage is not significant in that it mainly reports on stats and line-up changes. Location (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He started eight games as quarterback for LSU in 2008, which amply satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still, he has enough notability. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, as has not played professionally. As this is our loosest criterion for notability, I think failing this is sufficient for deletion. As for WP:BIO, there isn't significant coverage of the subject. Stats and scores don't count. Or, to put it bluntly, Wikipedia should not be for backup college football players. Ray^Talk 23:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not automatically notable, and no significant coverage. For American football, and possibly other college sports we may need to modify the rules slightly, but we should not do it in individual cases (the current wording in WP:WikiProject College football is " A player notable enough for inclusion in the project usually, but not always, goes on to a National Football League career, and thus is also covered under that project." . We seem to need guidelines for handling them earlier in their career. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While merely pointing to search results is insufficient to establish notability under the general notability guideline, the arguments for notability independent of sourcing have precedent and have not been convincingly addressed. In short, there is no consensus for any course of action in this discussion. Skomorokh, barbarian 01:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casale Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a non-notable company. The sources in the article and the sources in Google News Archive are either press releases or passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several edits by employees of Casale Media; of whichh seem to try to justify the actions of the company. There have also been edits by said employees which remove negative aspects of this article to reflect the company's actual acts. This is a long standing argument. It should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a place to advertise, promote or jusrtify one's actions; especiallyy if those actions can be considered mallicious^[1].ZellDenver (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

restore the page appears to have been whitewashed, it is notable, and needs to be restored to a previous version, including the criticism UltraMagnus^speak 12:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the reliable sources that prove that this company passes WP:CORP. Having looked through the article's history, I am unable to see how the criticism information establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not commenting on the subjects notability, I am simply stating that editors should refrain from passing judgement until the article has been un-whitewashed. --UltraMagnus^speak 21:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this version? I'm not seeing the notability there. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I may not know all the nuances of notability, but clicking on the "News" or even "Scholar" or "Books" seems to come up with perfectly usable results. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide links to the sources that you believe establish notability. The sources in those searches are either passing mentions, reprints of press releases, or unreliable. Cunard (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral See, perhaps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ad-Up (2nd nomination), related to the spurious first AfD of this article in 2006. I will agree that the current sources are not sufficient to indicate notability, but the comscore.com article contains information suggesting that decent enough sources could be found to pass WP:GNG, if not WP:CORP. Someone might want to tap redvers (talk · contribs) since he was involved in the old AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That link from comscore is a good indication of notability, but the depth of coverage is not enough to establish notability. The searches I performed returned mainly press releases. I have contacted Redvers (talk · contribs) to see if he can find sources. Cunard (talk) 07:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Casale is a fairly large agency with very broad reach - they just aren't well known by the average consumer since they only brand themselves to corporations. -Drdisque (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 - this article about an organisation does not assert notability. Nothing here lifts it above WP:MILL. (I realise the speedy delete isn't going to get up given the volume of discussion and the history, but the point is that it's incumbent upon articles about organisations to not just have the potential to assert notability, but to actually do it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DustFormsWords (talk • contribs) 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the phrase "Media Metrix reports that Casale Media's ads reach 109,865,000 web users." appears to assert notability --UltraMagnus^speak 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Twelve Pins (pub)[edit]

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

This is a totally non-notable pub, of the kind one finds on any London street; it has absolutely no distinguishing architectural features, unusual history or unique attributes, other than its unusual name (whatever its website may try to tell you to the contrary, nothing to do with the Irish mountain range but simply an attempt to cash in on the popularity of the bowling alley next door). The closest thing it has to a (tenuous) claim to notability is being the first pub one comes across when walking from Finsbury Park station to the Emirates Stadium, and consequently an occasional mention in football-related material, but that's no more of a claim to notability than "bar near Giants Stadium" would be in the US. – iride scent 22:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pub. Joe Chill (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A bar near Giants Stadium would be more notable because there are none as far as I am aware (its one of those sea of parking lots stadiums). As for the Pins, its good to know Irish Pubs are a marketing gimmick in London as well.--Milowent (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unremarkable establishment -Drdisque (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goresleeps[edit]

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

No indication that this meets any of the WP:BAND criteria. Prodded and deprodded without explanation twice back in April. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 20:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC) It does has two albums recorded on a major russian label (Soyuz).Labria 24 October 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 23:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Hurley[edit]

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

Non-notable musician/singer-songwriter. A Google News Archive search of the last 9 years (career started in the early 2000s) turned up a few mentions but no coverage of significance. Google turns up plenty of the usual unreliable sources (last.fm, etc.) but nothing of substance from any reliable sources. I couldn't find any coverage in a reliable souce of the claimed "national tour". I added a couple of meager references to the article but nothing I could find would help it pass WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 23:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice to creating a redirect as discussed Kevin (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Fields[edit]

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

Manager of a minor league team isn't covered enough Cynof Gavuf 00:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muskogee Athletics. (I could easily be convinced to recommend "delete" on the basis that it is unlikely that anyone will ever use his name as a search term.) The only thing I could find on him is the one factoid in the "article". The link to Bill Dickey is tenuous. Location (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Location's comment. He only managed for one year (1926) and no other claim to notability is made; also the proposed merged article is quite small and this could easily be merged into it. Keeping a redirect is fine.--Milowent (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, WP:BASE/N says that notability of minor league managers needs to be established by significant coverage in sources beyond statistics sites, such as www.baseball-reference.com. I really don't see a need for a redirect, though I suppose it wouldn't hurt anything. BRMo (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe britton[edit]

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

I nominated the article for speedy deletion before, but retracted it due to a chance of notability. I cannot find any sources that claim notability per Wikipedia:BIO#Pornographic_actors guidelines. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No claim of notability, borderline attack page (and not because of her involvement in porn). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced biography. Alexius08 (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject meets the GNG or any other specialized guideline, or that the article can be expanded or properly sourced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Origins Project[edit]

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

non notable project, original research. Timergain (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as WP:Crystal ball.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until it is confirmed that the article is inconsistent with no original research rule. See http://aksw.org/SoerenAuer/HowToDescribeResearchProjectsOnWikipedia [43]. It suggests that posting research projects on Wikipedia is appropriate and does not itself constitute original research. As for Crystal ball criteria for deletion, any research project necessarily describes an attempt to obtain results that are not currently available or documented in secondary sources. Historical information in article is amply footnoted. What is the past practice of Wikipedia in allowing entries on research projects? Note also that Timergain is sock puppet and blocked. Clionaut (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Crystal ball.--Yopie (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation of Yopie not useful without explaining how criteria fits article.Clionaut (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but split -- This article is not WP:OR, in that it is describing an academic research project. In that it is an advertisemnt for volunteers, it conceivably fails WP:ADVERT, but it does not blatantly do so. Nevertheless, the article needs to be pruned substantially so that it deals only with the project. The article contains significant material on the measures taken to enforce the Abolition of the Slave Trade, which would be much better in an free-standing article on that subject, rather than (as at present) a redirect to History of slavery, a bloated article dealing with all aspects of slavery, ancient and modern. The closest we have is Atlantic slave trade#End of the Atlantic slave trade, but that only carries the subject up to the abolition campaign]]. Abolitionism, which is the main article for that section goes on from the abolition of the trade to the campaigns for emancipation, their success, (almost bizarrely) the enslavement of Roma in what is now Roumania, and a list of when slavery was abolished in various countries. Those last two sections would be much better in the "History of Slavery". I, personally, would like to see either (1) Abolitionism renamed asAbolition of the Atlantic slave trade or (2) material from "abolitionism" moved that title, and combined with material from the article under discussion here. I am not a speciualist on this subject and thus reluctant to undertake this myself. Slavery is odious, and the slave trade even more so. However, the abolition of the Atlantic slave trade and the emancipation of slaves the slaves resulting from it are different subjects and each deserves full treatment on its own. This is in turn differs from Old World slavery, which can probably adequately be dealt with in the articleson slavery generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG, WP:CRYSTAL. Ray^Talk 23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don;t think we usually do individual research projects, but this is an appropriate exception. It's very well known, and a large social enterprise. The background material should be removed; this is an encyclopedia article, not a stand-alone piece, and the description of the history goes elsewhere The one real problem I have with it is that the text and the edit history gives me the impression of having been written for some other purpose than here, imported, and then wikified, so a check needs to be made for copyvio DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously, we cannot keep an article with only 16 non-Wikipedia Google hits. This project fails WP:V, and none of the sources in the article are about or even mention the project. What is the grant number? Abductive (reasoning) 07:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Clionaut UltraMagnus^speak 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "It's very well known". I thought we all knew not to make such arguments. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. The website isn't even launched. Most of the content is the background to the project rather than being about the project. It might turn out to be a notable project, but at the moment it probably just deserves a brief mention in another article about the slave trade to the Americas or the origin of African-American populations. Fences&Windows 01:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only one of the 15 listed references that even mentions the article's subject is number 15, and that one is a press release which fails as a WP:RS for notability purposes. The project itself seems to not come close to meeting the threshold for notability with the current refs, and nether google news or google scholar comes up with anything under the name of this article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet notable, but do not salt, as it could become so. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freesms[edit]

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

non notable website Timergain (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as the article says, "Free SMS is a service offered by many internet websites in the world." However, only one website is mentioned. Sounds like advertising? Alexius08 (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: perhaps an article about this concept might exist someday, but deleting this mess causes no harm.--Milowent (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourcing issue has not been adequately resolved, even though Epeefleche indicates a possible source. If the article can be rewritten in a manner which satisfies the criteria of WP:N and WP:RS, the consensus on whether this brand of guitars is notable may be different. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kapok Guitar[edit]

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

No third-party reliable source indicating notability. Original article created in 2006 was about a Malaysian guitar brand and noted that the term had also become a genericized trademark. Recently, the original article was overwritten and changed to be refer to a Chinese guitar brand. I can't find any third-party evidence of the notability of either brands, only that the Chinese brand currently exists as a division of Pearl River (company). Scattered forum postings support the genericized trademark claim, but that's about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned article on an unremarkable company. Cant add much to nominators sleuthing which hasnt found much to indicate this company might meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a famous Guitar brand in china has more than fifty years' guitar manufacture experience. there is a summary here. http://www.kapokguitars.com.cn/en/about.asp User:Slyhans (talk) 3:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment if it is a famous as you claim, you should be able to sufficiently reference it to meet notabilty guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seems to be a reference in one book that pops up in a google book search, but I can't get to it to assess what it says.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comement one mention in a single book does not "significant coverage" make.--RadioFan (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nor have I voted keep. Significant mention in multiple books would constitute significant coverage, so I was just leaving a comment as to what I have found (which is more than people previously indicated). If the book is a RS, and the mention surpasses the triviality threshold, this could be one element moving (though not sufficient in itself) towards meeting the cat 1 notability standard. Perhaps someone else has access. That's all I'm saying ... Fair enough?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StoryTestIQ[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find the sources either. Ray^Talk 23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzui[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any such coverage either. Ray^Talk 23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasmik Avetisyan[edit]

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

non notable painter, artist. Timergain (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's little more than a resume. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whether product reviews establish notability or not is not something policy has any bright line rules about, and that issue is deferred to the community on a case-by-case basis. In this case, nothing clear has emerged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ConceptDraw Project[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT

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

This is a writeup of a commercial product written by someone with a conflict of interest. Having been deleted it was userfied and guess what? Straight back to mainspace. Virtually all edits to this article are by single-purpose accounts which can be directly linked with trivial research to the company. Call me cynical, but I have a tendency to believe that the intersection between genuinely notable products and products which nobody outside the company thought to write up on Wikipedia, is the null set.

The problem here is that the sources are not independent. A press release does not become an independent source simply by virtue of being printed in a trade journal. And an advertisement does not become an article simply by virtue of citing the content to trade journals which say what the company tells them. And a conflict of interest does not become neutrality through that process, either. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's "sources problem" again? CSOWind (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added lots of sources for such small article - 10 references and not only press releases but mostly reviews from well-known resources. As for the "neutrality", I can't understand what do you mean - I didn't use words like "perfect solution", "best", "great" or any other estimations. Just a list of main features and common short information about the product history and it's notability. Btw, such work with other apps in it's pack is a distinctive and unique feature which deserved (from my point of view) to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Any comments and arguments will be highly appreciated. Sincerely yours, CSOWind (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews by MacUser and Macworld are enough to establish notability. Trade journals as a category should not be dismissed as playthings of their advertisers, although a few are. Most trade journals realize that they will attract and retain readers only if they provide reliable and relevant information. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per the MacUser and Macworld reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's above comments. 7OA That's a letter in the middle, folks. 22:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some trade journals do print a lot of PR. That's usually fairly easy to spot--in any reasonably reputable journal, if they do reprint PR, the PR is indicated as being an extensive quote from the producer, or by using terms of the general nature, "according to the company, this program..." Or, the sort of words CSOWind indicates. The journals cited here are reliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Multiple recreations, fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. This was just deleted, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. Trivial mentions with "limited interest and circulation", does not establish notability, no matter who they paid to review. Obviously the system is being gamed heavily.

See Spam case and Sockpuppet investigation

Multiple recreated articles;

ConceptDraw PROJECT

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT

delete log

19:31, 5 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT) (view/restore)
14:40, 16 September 2009 Nihonjoe (talk | contribs | block) protected ConceptDraw PROJECT [create=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Repeatedly recreated) (hist | change)
14:40, 16 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
14:30, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
11:52, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)

ConceptDraw

delete log

18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" ‎ (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')

ConceptDraw Project Current

delete log

06:51, 13 June 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (CSD A7/G11; content was: '((Infobox Software|name = ConceptDraw Project|caption = [http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/project/ ConceptDraw Project]|developer = [[Compute...')
18:33, 31 March 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (blatant advert)
20:29, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" ‎ (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)

Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote ConceptDraw software products. --Hu12 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non-consumer software package aimed at a very small technical market, part of the "project management" spam slough. This is one constituent part of a software package whose main article has been speedily deleted twice as spam[44], whose publisher's article has been speedily deleted twice as spam[45], and whose companion software has been deleted as spam[46]. We really need to reroute the Alpheus and Peneus rivers onto all of these minor, me-too software packages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I want to thank Hu12, for blocking my account and all accounts of my colleagues. We have a VPN Internet in our office and therefore single IP for more than 50 workers. Some of them were editing articles which are far from software theme. Generally, this is very convenient method of arguing - to block opponent by IP before the argument. Also he deleted all other articles, even ConceptDraw MINDMAP which was previously deleted and then restored after improvements. So I thought that it met all requirements. Secondly, the main criteria for deleting (as I see now) is lack of notability. It's not very correct to poke a finger at our competitors, but you don't leave me any choice. They have their articles without any objections and reproaches with "non-consumer limited interest specialized software". I gave lots of references from different sources from blogs to trade journals (see Eastmain comment above). Just tell me what else I need to improve or add to any article and it will be done at once. Also, with such a nickname (CSOWind) it is hard to imagine that I was trying to hide my COI. I just try to meet all Wikipedia requirements honestly and with patience, by cut and try method. Sincerely yours, CSOWind. 212.178.22.88 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Product reviews do not establish notability. We do not create article for every food processor mentioned in last month's Consumer Reports, why would we based on small mentions in MacWorld? Miami33139 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Product reviews do not establish notability". That's POV. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why does that matter? WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to deletion discussions. Of course the opinions in deletion discussions represent the point of view of the person stating them. Chick Bowen 03:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:N in no way mentions that reviews aren't allowed. Guidelines like WP:BK and WP:NF say that reviews are OK so obviously WP:N allows reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reviews must be non-trivial, the talk page discussions on the N:book and N:film pages reveal quite a bit of nuance. The reviews of this software are trivial. Miami33139 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A review that is over 10 paragraphs and a review that is three paragraphs being trivial? You obviously don't know what trivial is. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The ten paragraphs in MacUser are trivial. Before the Internet, computer magazines would have dozens of reviews of this length in every issue. This is a demonstration of existence, not notability. Miami33139 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your problem is with reviews, not trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (disclaimer: see previous AfD and first DRV for my prior involvement). There are two questions here--one raised by the article author, now blocked, which is whether we have an obligation to cover any product that is in direct competition to one that is already covered. The answer to that is no, because it may well be the case that one product has had a larger social and media impact than another even if their market share is the same; we are not in the product comparison business, after all--we simply record what the world deems significant. The other question is whether product reviews alone, absent other forms of coverage, constitute significant coverage. I think they don't, for the same reason as I just said--a periodical that habitually reviews every product within a certain category is not vouching for the significance of a product it reviews, only that it belongs to that category. Chick Bowen 03:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. So what source would confirm notability if blogs aren't professional and reliable and trade journals also not satisfying you? Returning to our competitors, how can you measure the social and media impact using Wiki article? I think that only by given sources. For example, for our direct competitor MindManager we have a much bigger article with all features described and the huge product history (which was twice shorter in MINDMAP article but deleted from it). All their sources are: a press release from the official product site, one report from MSDN blog (not Microsoft offsite as mentioned in the reference description), one report about award from Inranet journal (I even don't know about it, but I know about the MacWorld which nominated MINDMAP as a consumer product of the 2008 with the Adobe Photoshop) and two press releases (not reviews) from one source, which is currently broken or given links doesn't work. So we have 4 sources (product's offsite, a blog, and two journals) and that's enough for them to confirm their notability and "social and media impact". It seems that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Sincerely yours, hoping for justice, CSOWind 188.115.140.175 (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are welcome to state any competitors article is not notable by the standards of Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking at the four sources cited in the MindManager article, I would say they are not sufficient to establish notability, since all of them are basically press releases. Thus, if those are indeed the only sources available (or equivalents) than that article should be deleted as well. I haven't done the research to see if there are better sources out there, so I won't nominate it for deletion at this time, but I'd guess if it were nominated it would be at best 50/50 whether it would pass. Incidentally I don't think there is anything in the conflict of interest policy that would prevent you from nominating your competitors' articles for deletion, assuming you made a strong rationale and didn't try to canvass. Chick Bowen 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Firstly, my account is blocked. Secondly, my goal isn't to delete competitors articles but to create good and correct articles about our products. For example, if the product was nominated for the product of the year by MacWorld it's quite notable, IMHO. But I have not rights to decide here. CSOWind 212.178.30.32 (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete fails G11 and A7 UltraMagnus^speak 10:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the reviews in the article which I think are fine to establish to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the reviews provide non-trivial coverage. In response to UltraMagnus above, it is not A7, products are not A7'able. It's not G11 either, it is not exclusively promotional. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please answer when the decision will be made? I'm intending to get other deleted articles to DRV basing on this decision. Of course, only if it will be positive. CSOWind. 195.138.71.154 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is written in a fair non-promotional tone. reviews seem to satisfy notability requirements. --Pink Bull (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even though the participants were not entirely clear about where to merge it. As an editor, I am merging and redirecting to the town the company serves, Accrington. Not all the content will be merged however; the stuff about Mercedes minibuses seems a bit irrelevant for a geographical article. Page history will remain online. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M & M Coaches[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M & M Coaches

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

Contested prod. This article is about a company which fails WP:N and WP:ORG as it hasn't been the subject of discussion in multiple, reliable sources and it has not signifantly impacted its industry Them From Space 00:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one gnews hit (from which I found its incorporation date & added to article). Went through all 97 google hits none of which contained anything notable. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M&M Coaches based in Kidderminster was a different company (and dissolved in 2005). M&M Coaches based in Accrington is a trading name but does not appear to be a registered company. snigbrook (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd say the fact that a bus company provides a number of bus routes within a local area is notable, just not necessarily as an entire article (and I certainly can't see anything notable about the rest of it). I'd normally suggest merging this into a more encompassing article, but I can't think of any obvious destination. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. The company does not derve an article of its own. If kept it should be under the company name, not its trade name, though the trading name should survive as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere. I'm not 100% sure where it could go. All I can say for sure is that it shouldn't have its own article. 7OA That's a letter in the middle, folks. 22:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SEE MY GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GHITS? Please show some of the examples of the reliable sources that point to notability in that search. NW (Talk) 23:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge if someone comes up with where to merge it to, it has some gbooks coverage that may establish notability UltraMagnus^speak 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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