< 16 April 18 April >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Blueboy96 15:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Cochrane[edit]

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

Non-notable radio host on minor radio station. The one award mentioned does not establish notability, most refs are primary sources. Hairhorn (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hairhorn: Please refrain from judging how notable a radio host is being as I doubt you've listened to the thousands of radio hosts that have pages on here. Humboldt County has over 100 thousand people and KSLG has rated at number 1 for multiple years running. The one award mentioned is a national award that caters to excelling student radio personalities. Also please refer to the list of interviews that the host has if that's not notable I don't know what is. All the personal information that I got from Myles has been removed to cater to objectivity. This is merely a simple informative article that people in Humboldt County can refer to when searching for radio hosts. The minor radio station you refer to is listed along with the other three stations that Lost Coast Communications is a part of on wikipedia. 3 refs are sources from the official KSLG website, 1 is sourced to birth records, and other mentions the nation radio award. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.63.202 (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please leave the maintenance tags on the entry, they are meant to help improve it. You might also want to read up on Wikipedia policy, such as the notability guidelines; for example, interviewing notable people does not make you notable. The entry also needs reliable sources. Lastly, entries are normally judged on their own merits, not on whether their subjects are more or less notable than the subjects of existing pages: since anyone can make a page, the fact that a page exists demonstrates very little. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There are four kinds of usernames that are specifically disallowed: [Item one being] Misleading usernames imply relevant, misleading things about the contributor. Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia, or those that impersonate other people." (from Wikipedia:Username). Peridon (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta for that - don't often get compliments... Afraid that listening to the station would probably count as Original Research or something similar. No matter how good you are, it's the reliable sources that are what's looked for. Something non-editable and not press release. When you've got those - come back. (These discussions usually take seven days or so, anyway.) In the meantime, there's aboutus and LinkedIn which are for publicity info and such. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trouble is, the most of the references either don't mention you (so far as I can see), or are not reliable (by Wikipedia's standard which even cute Wikipedia out as a reference!), or are merely establishing existence (birth...). We don't doubt you exist - we need more evidence that you are noted rather than evidence of what goes on (roller derby...). Peridon (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately google isn't any grounds for deletion. There are enough news hits referenced in the article for me to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.64.214 (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, the number of Ghits doesn't matter, and neither does my stale sense of humor. What does matter is that there are no decent sources to cite for this BLP. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xtzou: Thanks for the update. You've only been a user for 19 days. Are you going to rebuttal my argument, or are you just going to bring up petty nonsense? Copernicus1952 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fair or not, new users whose only contributions are to an AFD are viewed with suspicion. Worse, your first edit modified an earlier posting by the IP 75.111.64.214, who already identified themselves as User:Myles cochrane in an earlier edit. So any suspicions are justified, whether or not they're "petty". Hairhorn (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I really meant his position on KSLG is the time slot they schedule college (even high school) students over the years, to give them radio experience and these DJs don't last long.96.41.10.97 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clearYou need to get your facts straight. I am a Humboldt County resident as well, and have lived in the area for a decade now. There has NEVER been a high school student in the 6-midnight slight on KSLG. The last person to hold that slot was there for 4-5 years. We blast Myles to Midnight at our local business. He and that daytime guy seem to be the only one that are on while KSLG's target market is awake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.150.100.22 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same IP that made the opening comment, I expect you've voted already. Hairhorn (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked at this since the opening comment, and as you'll notice, I didn't vote until now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.63.202 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your first IP comment you make it pretty clear that you're the article creator, who has already voted at least once. Hairhorn (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first comment again, Hairhorn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.63.202 (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 75.111.62.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That won't help. Despite what Myles Cochrane may have said on his radio show, this is not a vote. Brad 19:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The person that recommended this article for deletion is evidently becoming wary of the fact that he or she may be wrong. It is only in the opinion of Peridon that "Music" is not a fine art, "Journalism" is not an area of academics, and that an expansive interview portfolio is not a significant creative monument. Please continue to vote if you agree that Cochrane should have a wikipage because of WP:ACADEMIC Criteria 2 and WP:CREATIVE Criteria 4a. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.48.112 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC) — 75.111.48.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment You should be ashamed of yourself for jumping to conclusions too quickly. Have you ever heard the term to assume makes an a** out of u and me? I've heard Myles talk about this on his show. First of all he brings it up as an interesting debate with good points on both sides. He then goes on to say he would like to encourage those that have read the debate to weigh in on it. The people weighing in on this have all listed WP:ACADEMIC Criteria 2 and WP:CREATIVE Criteria 4a as a means for this article to be kept- not that Myles told them to do so. I've head him talk about this and he wouldn't do that. It actually makes for interesting radio, this whole thing. Would you expect him to just say nothing? If so you obviously don't know much about people in the media industry...they love to talk about EVERYTHING. Just because these people heard about the debate doesn't make this process any less of a debate. Its called canvassing. It's people like you that make assumptions too quickly that will be the death of wikipedia. Look it up: WP:CANVASS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.41.63.202 (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"not that Myles told them to do so." Yeah, right. All these people who have never been to Wikipedia before, just all happen to all quote the same (totally irrelevant) arguments, citing chapter and verse. (Why irrelevant? Citing the "academic" standard here is absurd; it applies to academics, i.e., professors. The "creative" standard also doesn't apply; it's for artists, authors, architects, etc. Mr. Cochrane's notability must be judged according to WP:ENTERTAINER - the standard for actors, TV personalities, and similar performers.) If Mr. Cochrane understood Wikipedia at all, he would know that this barrage of posts is hurting him, not helping. The process here is about achieving consensus among Wikipedians, people who know how Wikipedia works and what it stands for. Not drumming up a lot of "votes" from people who don't know the first thing about this place. The first thing being: Wikipedia has to have standards. It is not a place where anybody can post any old thing they like. There are a lot of places like that on the Web; this is not one of them. --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Creative 4a? You mean "The person's work has become a significant monument"? Sorry, but no. And WP:prof doesn't apply at all. Did you miss the comment above about repaeating the same point over and over hurting your case? Hairhorn (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Rai[edit]

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

No indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any specialized guideline other than WP:PORNBIO. Per the consensus application of PORNBIO in the Christopher Ashlee AFD, winning a "group scene" award along with eight other performers does not satisfy notability requirements. Original AFD resulted in deletion and 2009 group award is only added claim of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria one of porn bio eh! If that is what makes this person notable enough for a wikipedia biography then it needs changing. The citations are awful promotional and sales, there is no independent coverage of her at all, she has done nothing of note at all in her life. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL... never knew that page existed. <G> Tabercil (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only policy I believe in more than WP:IAR ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Man Who Laughs (Stage Play)[edit]

The Man Who Laughs (Stage Play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Un-notable play that hasn't opened. Doesn't pass WP:N. The article creator is the playwright. I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources and the google hits seem to be just about audition calls. [4] Clubmarx (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • .. exactly why I said "no reason to think it's notable" in addition to "hasn't even opened". Hairhorn (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion Excuse me, but as the author of the article, I have clearly written in the "Talk" page for this article that more information is coming. A little patience would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheaterRaven (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if Desired I have found a more appropriate web host for promoting the play. Therefore, delete the page, since you all seem to be in agreement it does not meet Wikipedia's high criteria. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheaterRaven (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know, which is why I have found another web host to promote my work. Like I said before, delete the page if you want. The other source I have found better suits the needs of both our parties involved. TheaterRaven (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Player Mode[edit]

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

A blatant how-to guide. The page had already been PRODed once; the PROD was declined by an anonymous user. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ulen Hibiki[edit]

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

No indication of notability on the official web-sites. Possibly a one shot character. allen四names 23:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Album (Katy Garbi)[edit]

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

This article was written in response to the original redirect (to Katy Garbi) was nominated for deletion per WP:HAMMER. The redirect's deletion discussion was closed as the creation of the article removed it from was not part of RfD purview. Unfortunately, the new article demonstrates crystal balling. The "untitled album" has not been released; nor has the song lineup been confirmed in any reliable source. B.Wind (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the wrong deletion template was just used. Everything above is just very confusing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Rain[edit]

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

Un-notable manga and a story created by the article creator. No google hits. [5] Clubmarx (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn with no outstanding arguments for deletion. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out-of-place artifact[edit]

Out-of-place artifact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEO. I can't find any in depth coverage of the term itself and only a few sources which use it. It isn't covered in depth by any of the sources provided. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep arguments are enough to convince me! Withdrawn with my apologies. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since Ivan T. Sanderson died in 1973 this neologism is at least 37 years old. I see 200,000 ghits for the phrase "out of place artifacts". I've scrolled through a few pages of them and the article seems to be a good summary of how the term is used. John of Reading (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blanked the copyvio part now, so it's pretty much reduced to stub status -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, looks like the apparent copyvio was a mirror of an earlier Wikipedia version - another editor has put it back now. So my opinion now changed to just "Keep" -- Boing! said Zebedee 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Pornhab with Dr. Screw[edit]

Celebrity Pornhab with Dr. Screw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub that possibly fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). EuroPride (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum physics demo[edit]

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

This article is a how-to describing how to demonstrate quantum physics to yourself. It has no references (besides one for a quote from Wikiquote). If anything, I believe it should be merged into a Quantum Physics article, such as Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. (Note: This is my first time doing an AFD, so if I did something wrong, please let me know. Thanks.) VerballyInsanet|c 21:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oh yes, so it does - I've changed my !vote to Delete. -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would you happen to know if the experiment had a specific name? It would make it easier to find information about it. VerballyInsanet|c 03:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Professor McFadden calls it the "Sunglasses Experiment" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunkcar (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note the ref to the book has a web link, but that's broken. And I don't understand the remark "Quantum physics and classical physics explanations of the same phenomena are placed side by side in the Socratic Method." If polarisation can be understood classically, as the "debunking" ref suggests, than the experiment doesn't actually demonstrate quantum physics. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's interesting enough. I'd like to see more refs, though, including to books on polarisation that confirm that the phenomenon can't be understood classically. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point - it can be understood classically, as one of the refs describes, so it's probably nothing to do with quantum physics -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very much afraid that you're right (although I wish I'd paid more attention in physics class way back when). -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your criticism is valid. The statement was too broad and has now been corrected. Crunkcar (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know that passage of light through a polarizer does not twist the polarization vector of the photons? (Genuine question - I really don't know) -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Miller (singer)[edit]

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

The only cited source for this article is some uploaded pictures of the subject's wedding. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No individual notability or coverage, perhaps merge any worthwhile cited content (if there is any) with the band article O-Town_(band) Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all mentions are trivial (in lists of "celebrity" birthdays, and a photo caption where he appeared at a local charity basketball game). Appears to have no independent notability outside of the band. Per Gene93k, merge anything useful and referenceable (currrently nothing) to the band's article. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Miller (guitarist)[edit]

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

Not so much an unsourced WP:BLP - that would imply some biographical content - more an unsourced directory entry on a living person. Backing guitarist with a band that is not, let's be honest here, The Beatles. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Abecedare (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BeForU[edit]

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

Article on a band which has never had any independent sources, along with the related articles which all have the same problem. I came across this due to tagging of an album page as CSD#G11. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naroin[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability, possibly even a hoax. Very few Google hits, no news mentions that I could find. I'm not convinced this is a real religion. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is considered, but there still is no real evidence of notability here. The only sources are another wiki and a fanfic page. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why I want it to be perfectly clear I did not change an article about a religion into an article about a work of fan fiction in order to get it deleted.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Below, I have merged the info from the Trigoddess and Sollisey pages. I have turned those AfDs into redirects to this debate. —Ost (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes from Trigoddess AfD
  • Actually, I added the TVTropes reference to Naroin because the article is sure to be deleted and editors might permissibly consider, in that light, the claims made about Nintendo, prior to my edit, in regard to religious content. The article's talk page would normally have been better but the hoax is consuming enough time and bandwidth already.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Votes from Solissey AfD
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:RELIST, two relistings is the maximum; this is heading for a keep anyway. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master DeRose[edit]

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

I can find no reliable sources in English for this person. I know that there might be more in Portuguese, but I'm not sure if any of the sources used are reliable. The fact that this is being created on April Fool's Day, being edited by a huge number of brand new editors, gives me pause. At best, this is a BLP concern, at worst, it's a hoax. Woogee (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add SwáSthya Yôga to this AfD. Woogee (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of DeRose Method students, who is helping to create this page. Everything that is written on this page was based on his(Master DeRose) books, written in Portuguese and Spanish. It's very easy to find all the sources that we used to create it. Only need someone that speaks Portuguese or Spanish. Only is not fair allowing putting in English Wiki writers that have books written in English. All the world communicates in English. I am trying to convince that I only put the truth on this page. Regards and I appreciate all your understanding. Pacifici - London —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing the article based on his books is an improper use of sourcing. Please see WP:BLP and WP:RS. And why, all of a sudden, have so many of his students shown up here? Is he or someone else recruiting them? Woogee (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Woogee,
I am just trying to speak about someone that I know profoundly for more than 8 years. I have read all of his 25 books(some sold out) and did tens of workshop in several countries. I did't copy nothing from his books, I only based on them. There is no more trustful source than books. Do you agree?
Please, any question that you want to know I'd love to answer, such as any source that you wish to know. By the way, what about "someone else recruiting them?" that is very offensive, and doesn't make any sense.
If you haven't found yet, there is more than 200 schools abroad the world that use his Method. As Pilates schools, for exemple.
Regards,Pacifici —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacifici2010 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC) --Pacifici2010 (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Books written by the subject are not reliable. Anybody can write anything they want. Woogee (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is not an April fools joke. All master derose books are available online for fee at uni-yoga.com if you would like to see them in case they don't sell them in your countey. As for books bou being reliable, if they are not then what is? Thee are also links to various reowned Brazilian established television stations that have carried out inteviews on master DeRose. If you see on the the wiki there is also a link in the acclaim section where you can see all the awards, and recognitions master DeRose has been awarded by the Brazilian govenment. He is an extreamly important persob and only because all information regarding Him is in Spanish or portugese not many prole know about him in the Anglo Saxon world and we believe this should change. The reason so many people have probably added to his new English page is because they are happy to share and spread knowledge about him, as he has thousands students in various DeRose method schools thoughhout the world. I would strongly suggest you get someone that speaks portugese or Spanish to watch the inteviews and learn a bit about master DeRose before taking any steps to erase this wiki, which is all 100% truth and a biography of maybe one of the great thinkers of our time at the level of Nelson mandela, but whom is unknown for a great part of the world only because of the barriers of language. Andrea Mandiola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.28.196 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a request for a Portuguese editor and offered to help. However, I have no idea how to report on my 'findings'. I have posted a brief summary on the talk page of the user who posted the request. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testimonial from OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais

Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais certifies the truthfullness of the statements below, published on Wikipedia about writer and educator DeRose. Ordem do Mérito das Índi--OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)as Orientais is a not-for-profit, non-political, non-religious cultural institution that was officially created in 2008, in the city of Penafiel, Portugal, with the purpose of: - acknowledging public recognition to various individuals and institutions with outstanding contribution in the national and foreign cultural, social and philantropic areas; - promoting India's ancient cultural and philosophical inheritance; - establishing relevant links within the India-Brazil-Portugal cultural circuit; All these actions are publically and officialy marked by the attribution of honorary medals and decorations, and by the organization of several cultural events. The foundation act of this institution was honoured by the presence and the official support of the Portuguese Ministry of Culture, the Health Services Secretary of State, Dr. Manuel Pizarro, the Júlio Resende Foundation (Júlio Resende is a woldwide renowned Portuguese painter) and the Mayor of the city of Penafiel, Dr. Alberto Santos. Among the events put forward by Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais as a tribute to DeRose, we would like to mention two in particular: DeRose Culture and DeRose Gala, two annual events made in Portugal, consisting of a series of cultural events, including exhibitions and artistic performances related to ancient India’s culture and philosophy. The 2008 edition of the DeRose Gala featured an Exhibition/Installation based on one of DeRose’s books (Sútras – Máximas de Lucidez e Êxtase) – see the vídeo presentation at: http://www.memoriamedia.net/dossiers/sutras_imagens/dossier_expo/sutras_expo.html. The Exhibition which took place at the Museu Municipal de Penafiel, which was officially nominated for the EMYA 2010 (European Museum of the Year Award), which awards each year the museums that significantly contribute to cultural development on their specific area of expertise and to European cultural exchange. These year’s editions will be specially dedicated to celebrating DeRose’s Golden Jubilee. This way we will be marking the 50 year mastership of this worldwide renowned writer, educator and philosopher with a special tribute during the DeRose Gala 2010, for which several institutions and individuals were invited. Already for DeRose’s 25 year mastership celebration a commemorative medal was released in Portugal to mark that significant date. These events welcome yearly some of the biggest international authorities on Ancient Yôga and also a few hundred participants coming from Portugal, Brazil, Spain, France, Italy, United Kingdom and Germany.[reply]

As per our official invitation, DeRose joined Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais as Grand Master, which very much honours this institution. In that post he awarded several individuals in 2008 and 2009, such as: - Júlio Resende (worldwide renowned painter) and the Júlio Resende Foundation - Journalist and writer António Mateus - Dr. Manuel Pizarro (Health Services Secretary of State, member of the Portuguese Republic’s government) - Prof. Giuseppe Mea (representative of the Italian community in Portugal). As referred in DeRose’s Historic, between years 2001 and 2002 he was acknowledged as Master in Yôga and Honoris Causa doctorate (Notorious knowledge in Yôga / non-academic) by Universidade Lusófona de Lisboa and by Universidade do Porto (Portugal).

The prestige he has gathered throughout the years for his honest and anti-commercial posture has found an echo in the international media and is materialized by the cultural support of various official institutions, like the Indian Embassy in Brazil and Portugal.

One of the most recent interviews to DeRose was made in 2009 by Portuguese journalist and writer António Mateus*. It was released on a DVD entitled “Conversas com Rumo”. The following caption languages are currently available: spanish, german, italian, The english version will soon be released (http://www.uni-yoga.org/entrevista_derose_tv.php). Also in April 2009 DeRose was interviewed by Portuguese State TV Channel TV2. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqHVm2u1T6I). On May 2007 he was the special guest of Portuguese TV show “Páginas Soltas”, hosted by Bárbara Guimarães http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0pEOayeCc).


  • António Mateus started his career as a reporter in the O Globo newspaper, in 1982. He worked in the News Agencies NP and Lusa and he headed both their delegations in Maputo and Johanesburg from 1986 to 2003. He collaborated several times with BBC, Voice of America, Portuguese radio broadcast station RDP, Visão and Expresso (two of the most relevant Portuguese magazines and newspapers). He worked for the three Portuguese TV channels before joining RTP’s board (the public TV channel) in 1996, as Information and Program Coordinator of RTP Africa. He was the first Communication Advisor for CPLP (Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries), Managing Director-founder of Focus magazine, RTP’s International Politics Editor and, as of today, Editor for two major TV news shows, Telejornal and Jornal 2. During the 16 years he spent in southern Africa as a reporter, he ensured daily coverage of the developments on Angola and Mozambique’s civil wars and the subsequent peace endeavors. He also closely accompanied and reported all the negotiations for the Cuban withdrawal from Angola, Namibia’s independence process and the end of apartheid in South Africa, among several other relevant media issues. While he worked as a news correspondent in South Africa, he interviewed tens of world notorious individuals, like the Nobel prize awarded Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and Frederik de Klerk. He closely accompanied the first six years of Nelson Mandela’s life after being released from captivity. These experiences were the starting point for António Mateus’ two books: "Homens vestidos de Peles Diferentes" (Ulmeiro) e "Selva Urbana" (Colibri). For more information on writer and journalist António Mateus: http://selvaurbana.blogs.sapo.pt. The above text is the short English version of his profile, taken from the blog.

Ten of DeRose’s 25 literary works were published in Portugal: Tudo sobre Yôga Origens do Yôga Antigo Mitos e Verdades Encontro com o Mestre Eu me lembro… Alternativas de relacionamento afectivo Chakras e kundaliní Sútras – Máximas de Lucidez e Êxtase Quando é preciso ser forte and Tratado de Yôga (in Sanskrit: Yôga Shástra), the world’s most comprehensive book on Yôga ever published, in the whole history of Yôga. It comprises 58 breathing exercises, 32 mantras, 27 kriyás, 52 concentration and meditation exercises, 108 mudrás and their correspondant pictures, and over 2.000 physical techniques (ásanas) and their correspondant photos. This book is a classic. It teaches a peculiar, far reaching subject, which is treated in an accurate and elegant language, as never seen before in this publishing field. DeRose’s Tratado deYôga is a canonical masterpiece when it comes to dealing with the millenary philosophy of Yôga. DeRose has been researching and teaching for 50 years, in a continuous struggle to rescue the Ancient Yôga’s true essence, without ever giving way to modern trends that tend to simplify, adapt, westernize or mix this noble cultural inheritance with other proposals. This masterpiece was made with over 200 collaborations, improvements and additions. We replaced the two thousand, one hundred and sixteen ásanas photo file by a new one with higher definition, we inserted more varied photos, we revised the text, we added footnotes, we included more information and instructions wherever there was available space. We enhanced a few paragraphs, we ameliorated some of the test replies, we updated the recommended bibliography, as well as the History of Yôga in Brazil, we chiseled some of the pages’ layout in order to make them more didactical or more aesthetic, we perfected the cover so as to make it more elegant and the title clearer, and, finally, we couldn’t help adding 30 new pages. Tratado de Yôga has been commended by the Chairman of the Yôga Federation of India, M. S. Viswanath, who stated: “This book is the monumental contribution to this century’s Yôga and the most priceless gift to the forthcoming’s one”. The book includes also the statements of several Ambassadors of India in Brazil and Portugal, together with the cultural support of those Embassies. For more information on Tratado de Yôga: http://www.tratadodeyoga.com


For more information on Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais: http://www.ordemmeritoindiasorientais.eu http://www.ordemmeritoindiasorientais.eu/doc/

For more information on writer, educator and philosopher DeRose: www.uni-yoga.org www.uni-yoga.org/blogdoderose www.uni-yoga.org/blogdoderose/comendas-e-condecoracoes/

With our most respectful salutations

Luís Lopes

Presidente da Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais


DeRose’s Historic and Trajectory

DeRose is an Honoris Causa Doctorate, Notorious Knowledge, Commendation-awarded by several cultural and humanitarian institutions, Counsellor of the Order of Parliament Members of Brazil, Counsellor of the Brazilian Art, Culture and History Academy and Counsellor of the Latin-American Art Academy. He has accomplished 50 years as an educator, of which 24 years were spent travelling to India. During his journeys he attended countless schools, monasteries and other cultural institutions, and in all of them he endeavored to master his knowledge on hindu philosophy. Here is a brief overview of his career trajectory:

1960: He began teaching in a respectful philosophical society.

1964: He founded the Instituto Brasileiro de Yôga.

1969: He published his first book (Prontuário de Yôga Antigo), which was belauded by Ravi Shankar himself, by Master Chiang Sing and by other reputed authorities.

1975: Already consecrated as a truthful teacher, he raised the necessary support to found União Nacional de Yôga (Uni-Yôga), the first institution to congregate teachers and schools of all types of Yôga, without discrimination. It was União Nacional de Yôga who started the union, ethics and mutual respect movement among the professionals in that teaching area. Since then, the institution has grown widely and today has hundreds of schools in just about the whole of Brazil, and teachers in Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Hawai, Indonesia, Canada, U.S.A., Australia and other countries.


1978: He led the campaign to create and promote the first bill to regulate the Yôga teacher professional status, which set in motion a few heated and lively debates across the country. From the 70s on, he introduced the University Extension Courses to form Yôga teachers in almost all Federal, State and Catholic Universities.

1980: He started administering courses in Indian territory and giving classes to Yôga teachers in Europe.

1982: He put together and conducted the First Brazilian Yôga Congress. Still in 82 he released the first teacher-orientation book, the Guia do Instrutor de Yôga, and the first translation of Pátañjali’s Yôga Sútra ever made by a Brazilian Yôga teacher. Yôga Sútra is the most relevant book on Classic Yôga.

Unfortunately, the more Prof. DeRose stood out, the more he became the target of a merciless persecution made by those who felt harmed by his clarification campaign.

1994: When accomplishing 20 years of travelling to India, he founded the First Yôga University of Brazil and the International Yôga University in Portugal.

1997: He launched the foundations of the Federal Yôga Council and the National Union of Yôga Teaching Professionals.

2000: He celebrated his 40th anniversary as a reputed Yôga teacher and researcher. In the subsequent years, as follows, he was awarded many honorary titles by several cultural and humanitarian institutions.

2001 and 2002: Master in Yôga and Honoris Causa doctorate (Notorious knowledge in Yôga / non-academic) by FATEA – Faculdades Integradas Teresa d’Ávila (SP), by Universidade Lusófona de Lisboa (Portugal), by Universidade do Porto (Portugal), by Universidade de Cruz Alta (RS), by Universidade Estácio de Sá (MG), by Faculdades Integradas Coração de Jesus (SP) and by the Curitiba City Hall (PR). Commendation of the Ordem do Mérito de Educação e Integração by the Sociedade Brasileira de Educação e Integração.

2003: Commendation award by the Brazilian Academy of Art, Culture and History.



2004: Knight’s degree, by the Ordem dos Nobres Cavaleiros de São Paulo, acknowledged by the Commander-in-Chief of the Nineth of July Cavalry Regiment, of the São Paulo State Military Police.

2006: Tiradentes Medal by the Legislative Assembly of the Rio de Janeiro State. Peace Medal, by ONU Brazil. Honoris Causa doctorate by the Câmara Brasileira de Cultura, by Universidade Livre da Potencialidade Humana and by several other cultural institutions. Historical and Cultural Merit Diploma (Grand Officer degree). He was also appointed as Counsellor of the Order of Parliament Members of Brazil.

2007: Honorary Associate Member of the Rotary Club.

Paul Harris’ Medal of the Rotary Foundation (Rotary International). International Medal of the United Nations and American States Veterans. Academic Cross by the Federação das Academias de Letras e Artes do Estado de São Paulo “for meritory and uplifting actions on behalf of the Nation’s development”. 30th January: Moção de Votos de Júbilo e Congratulações by the São Paulo City Hall (RDS 3059/2006). 27th March: Voto de Louvor e Congratulações by the Paraná State Legislative Assembly “for relevant services rendered”. December: Marshal Falconière’s Medal.

2008: Láurea D. João VI, included in the celebration of the 200 years of the Harbour Opening. 18th February (considered as Yôga Day by state law in thirteen Brazilian states) Title of São Paulo’s Citizen, by the São Paulo City Hall. March: Omnium Horarum Homo Diploma of the Civil Defense, attributed by the governor of the São Paulo State, José Serra, “for his commitment towards the humanitarian cause”. Peace Cross of the II World War Veterans. Merit Medal of the Brazilian Expeditionary Corps. MMDC Medal by the Commander in Chief of the São Paulo State’s Military Police. Medal of the Bicentenary of the Independence Dragons of the Brazilian Army. Union’s Military Justice Medal. November 2008: Appointed Grand Master of the Ordem do Mérito das Índias Orientais, Portugal. Appointed as Cultural Attaché of the Université de Yôga de Paris, France. 2nd December: Medal attributed by the São Paulo Press Association, in view of his initiatives in social and humanitarian causes. 4th December: Sentinelas da Paz Medal, by the UNO Blue Berret Corps from Joinville, Santa Catarina. 5th December: Social and Cultural Recognition Cross, at the São Paulo City Hall. 9th December: Military House Medal, by the Civil Defense, at the Government Palace, in view of his participation in the various Clothing Campaigns organized by the São Paulo State and for his


assistance in gathering resources to help the homeless after the Santa Catarina tragedy. 22nd December: an additional Recognition Diploma of the Civil Defense, at the Government Palace.

2009: January: Diploma of the Amigo da Base de Administração e Apoio do Ibirapuera, of the Brazilian Army. D. João VI Collar, by the Judicial Power, Military Justice. Attestato di Riconoscimento, by the Accademia del Fiorino di Arti, Lettere, Scienze, Lavoro e Spetaccolo, Italy. Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca’s Collar, by the Brazilian government, on the occasion of the celebration of the 120 years of the Brazilian Republic and national flag implementation. Medal by the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil. Emeritus Federal Counsellor Diploma, Brazilian government award Grand-Collar by the Sociedade Brasileira de Heráldica, on the occasion of DeRose’s 50 year mastership.


DeRose’ anniversary date, 18th February, was adopted by thirteen Brazilian states and established, by state law, as Yôga Day. Those states are: São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul, Minas Gerais, Bahia, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Pará, Goiás, Piauí, Ceará, and also the Federal District.

Currently, writer and philosopher DeRose celebrates his 25 book publishing, in several countries and with over one million copies sold. His anti-commercialist posture has attained something never before accomplished by an author with their editor: the liberty to allow free internet download of several of his books in Portuguese, Spanish, German and Italian, free of charge MP3 of his Yôga practice CDs and tens of webclasses, also for free, at the Uni-Yôga site: www.Uni-Yoga.org, which doesn’t sell anything whatsoever. All of these were historical precedents, which made DeRose the most quoted and, undoubtedly, the most important Brazilian Master of Yôga, for the tireless energy he uses in promoting Yôga for the last 50 years, in books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, conferences, courses, trips and new teachers’ training. He has formed over 6.000 good Yôga teachers and has helped create thousands of Yôga centres, professional associations, Yôga Federations, Confederations and Unions. As of today, his work has spread throughout Argentina, Chile, Portugal, Spain, France, United Kingdom, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Hawai, Indonesia, U.S.A., Canada, Australia, etc. DeRose is supported by an expressive number of cultural, academic, humanitarian, military and governmental institutions, who recognize the value of his work and made him the world’s most decorated Master of Yôga with medals, titles and commendations. Notwithstanding, he always states:

“The honors I am awarded from time to time by the Brazilian Army, the Legislative Assembly, the State government, the City Hall, the Military Police, the Civil Defense, the São Paulo Press Association, the Rotary, the Brazilian Chamber of Culture, the Order of the Parliament Members


of Brazil and by other cultural and humanitarian institutions, are demonstrations of the respect paid by society to Yôga and to all professionals in this area. So being, it is my wish to share with you the merit of this recognition. Publicizing these tributes and commendations is not justified by personal vanity. It is a good thing that these award solemnities take place, because the public opinion, our teachers, our students and their relatives understand that there are strong and credible institutions that support us and that acknowledge the value of the work we have been carrying out on behalf of youth, the nation and mankind”.


You can see the institutional site here: ['www.MetodoDeRose.org'] And one site in ennglish: [www.derosemethod.us] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.62.121 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept these tributes, because they do not serve to inflate one’s ego, but their purpose is the recognition of Yôga by society and by the institutions. It is Yôga which is being commended”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrdemMeritoIndiasOrientais (talk • contribs) 15:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wiki

I have known Prof. DeRose's work for 18 years now, and I can clearly state that Professor DeRose is one of the most serious educators and Masters of Yoga, his work leading the area in several countries. All of his bibliography is hyper-linked (although not in English) and they prove his good reputation In my point of view, it will be very important to have his work in English language, as every country should get accesses to his work, as I think is a amazing contribution for man kind. Kind regards Gustavo Cardoso Well-being consultor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavo321 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The language of sources shouldn't be an issue at all. It must be verifiable that they are reliable, though. Nageh (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronz, I am not a practitioner of yoga, I have no personal interest at all in keeping this article and I deprecate the use of Wikipedia for promotion or posting of partial information. But I'm a brazilian myself and I must recognize the enormous comercial success of DeRose. The article itself brings some links to Estadão, which is a well-established brazilian newspaper. Lechatjaune (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 06:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Darkwind (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of black ice hockey players[edit]

List of black ice hockey players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Race based list, regardless of what nation a player's family came from, or if they are not even fully regarded as "black" is just trivial. Nominating this article separately from the other race-based hockey articles since it is actually sourced properly. Львівське (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) ℳøℕø 06:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey players of Asian descent[edit]

List of ice hockey players of Asian descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary list that is also original research.

Article sorts players by "Asian race", comprised of certain oriental nations, and India, but not the rest of Asia (middle east, russia, etc.). Poorly sourced. Львівське (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are exactly the same:[reply]

List of ice hockey players of Latino descent‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of ice hockey players of Middle Eastern descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Agreed, I guess by this arbitrary definition, ethnic Kazakh players would be allowed but ethnic Russian Kazakhstani players excluded? It's just all over the place. Mogilny was born so close to China, but he's not Asian enough for the Asian article, but Paul Kariya, a half-scot half-japanese from BC, is. --Львівське (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not, as Siberia isn't Asian enough. Now if you're 1/18th Taiwanese, you have a good chance of making "the list" --Львівське (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an accomplishment to be Oriental?--Львівське (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elsinore (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest problem with this article isn't that the band is non-notable; the whole article is a stub. If this isn't rectified soon, the article should remain candidate for deletion. --George The Man (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stub status is seldom a valid rationale for deletion. AfD is for articles that cannot be improved upon because they are non-notable or not verifiable. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 20:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:Transpanther is a WP:SPA with only three edits - all related to this article/AfD. Rklawton (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch Box Boys[edit]

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

Tagged since 2007 for lack of independent references, this article doesn't show any significant gains toward reaching the WP:BAND notability bar after I've removed all the circular links (and two to a disambiguation page that doesn't mention the band member in question). If this does meet the bar, the article is in serious need of rewriting, to say the least. Article originated by User:ChrisHurn, apparently one of the band members. B.Wind (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Foundation for the Blind in Thailand[edit]

Christian Foundation for the Blind in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. 6 gnews hits in 32 years of existence is hardly notable. [21]. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

time magazine is a highly reliable source which would have huge editorial discretion. publishing of conference papers is not as third party as time magazine. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 19:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that it was founded by a blind man makes it highly notable". is not a criterion for notability. Please stop inventing criterion for WP:N. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Fruit Project[edit]

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

Nom no evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. There are two external links, one is broken and the other doesn't mention anything about the group. There are two references - both broken. The group claims to be "underground" - but I think "dead and buried" would be more accurate. withdrawn Rklawton (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that this group is notable based on the new refernces presented here. I assume the confusion was that this group has gone by a lot of different names. Is this correct? For example the chronicle article seems to suggest the the fruit project name is a name of one of their songs and not the band name. I just skimmed it so perhaps I am ill informed, however it appears to be a keep via WP:GNG.MATThematical (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Chronicle article includes "Om recently released Strange Fruit Project's "The Healing." The album has already garnered some of the strongest reviews in the label's history and lodged in the top 10 on the iTunes charts". I'm not aware that they have gone by different names. If you take a look at the article now, there are several further sources covering the group.--Michig (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled English Album (Sakis Rouvas)[edit]

Untitled English Album (Sakis Rouvas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:HAMMER suggestions and WP:NALBUMS guidelines. No sources confirming concrete information such as release territories, labels, completion of new work, etc., because the project itself never took off and probably never will. Current writing style is borderline synthesis of (vague) sources. Imperatore (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The single This Is Our Night already has a page as it was Greece's entry in the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest. The premise for this album was to exploit Rouvas' international exposure in the said contest as leverage for a Europe-wide English language album. However, after a slightly dissapointing finish at the contest, Rouvas redirected his focus to his Greek career. Especially with his recent career commitments in Greece, the prospects for this album are dwindling, if not completely dead. Furthermore, This Is Our Night as an album, as presented above by User:B.Wind, is actually the 2009 re-release of 2008's Irthes, and is already covered on the said page. Hence, This Is Our Night (album) should rightfully redirect to Irthes as it stands now.Imperatore (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SimulTrans[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a company which restates marketing claims (ISO 9001, for example, is about as generic as you get) but fails to establish why being "the largest and oldest full service localization and translation firm on the West Coast" is actually significant (it could, for all we know, be the only one). Created by a WP:SPA, this one lights up the WP:COI sensors especially given the history, which is spammy to say the least. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the Boys Come Marching Home[edit]

When the Boys Come Marching Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable song. DimaG (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UiTM Stadium[edit]

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

Previous removed by prod with this reason: no assertion of notability independent of the university Eeekster (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KooBoo[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. My searches have yielded no significant coverage, and the sources given are only incidental mentions. Haakon (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Ringer[edit]

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

Speedy declined. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and would do so even if sourced. One upcoming film role, one rumour, and one television appearance do not amount to notability, or anywhere near it. Has previously been deleted for the same reasons. Rodhullandemu 16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This means that if he is sourced properly, then he would still meet notability standards. For these reasons, I vote keep. SilverserenC 21:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the "Delete" votes in the last Afd cited WP:BIO and WP:GNG as well as WP:ENT. I thought it would just be cruel to add these to the equation, but I have been watching the recent desperate efforts to make this article viable according to our standards. Best of luck with the ((rescue)), but as long as editors persist in adding unsourced content, rumour (what!!!) and breaches of copyright from the Avatar wikia, I will be strictly applying WIkipedia policies, and you should learn to live with that, or rise above it and make this article worthy of being here. So far, it ain't. Rodhullandemu 21:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding reliable sources and doing what I can. I've also just added a reference that proved the "rumor" true. So, have fun with that. SilverserenC 21:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. If you can turn a shed into a mansion, fine. Rodhullandemu
Absolutely not. The basics are not negotiable, particularly WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS, and these are policies, not guidelines, and certainly not "suggestions", whether an article is up for deletion or not. An article, particularly a biography, lives or dies by its sources. As for inclusion, apart from the above policies, WP:BURDEN applies, and it's just not good enough to include unsourced content in the optimistic expectation that a source will magically turn up later, when you can be arsed to do so. It's fundamental to the values of Wikipedia that if it ain't sourced right up front, it goes. No "later"; no "ifs", no "buts". When we are talking about real people, our legal responsibility is to get it right, and get it right now. It's not that difficult to achieve, if the sources are there, but later is not an option. Rodhullandemu 22:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...thank you for that, except it has absolutely nothing to do with the content you are attempting to remove. All of the policies you mentioned are about verifiability and notability. WP:BURDEN is about removing unsourced information. All of the information in the article is currently sourced, so that doesn't apply at all. So...i'm not entirely sure what your argument is here. SilverserenC 23:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. WP:BURDEN, which you obviously have not read, is about the responsibility of editors to justify their edits; that follows from WP:V, if nothing else, and follows on to WP:RS. I'll make my argument quite plain, however: Whatever sources you might find to support the notability of this article, our requirements in this respect are not negotiable and are independent of your personal opinion. Thus far, we have a young actor who has one role in one film, and a potential role in another. Per WP:ENT, that is not even close to establishing notability, and the sooner you realise this, the better. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are accusing me of not having read WP:BURDEN? *sighs* It says in the first two lines there that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." It goes on to discuss how original research and synthesis should not be created from the references. It then goes on to discuss how unreferenced material can be removed, but the person that removes it should make a good attempt first at finding sources for the information being removed, in order to confirm that it should be taken out. So, like I said, WP:BURDEN has nothing to do with the information you are trying to remove from the article, as all of the information is properly sourced. SilverserenC 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, as I stated before when I first commented in this discussion, failure to meet WP:ENT (and it is only failure for now, at least) does not mean that the person is not notable as "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Thus, if a person still meets the basic criteria for inclusion, which is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," then even if they fail WP:ENT, or any other additional criteria for that matter, they are still notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. SilverserenC 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe it is me that has to review the policies. SilverserenC 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're accusing me of Wikilawyering (violating the spirit of policies) now? And i'm not following your edits or stalking you in any way, so i'm not hounding you. Im trying to explain, according to policy, why the subject of the article is notable. You have yet to actually respond to my explanations in a policy-based manner, you've just been accusing me of things. And I have been working on the article and I will continue to do so. You also have yet to actually point out any deficiencies either. SilverserenC 23:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are "trying to explain, according to policy, why the subject of the article is notable", that is best addressed by adding reliable sources to the article to support that proposition. Meanwhile, while you are not doing that here, which would be somewhat irrelevant, since what is under consideration is the article, as opposed to this discussion, which is directed to our policies and guidelines. The bottom line is that if you can make this article defensible with respect to WP policies, you should do so. And if you can't, or won't. you should go elsewhere. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added sources to the article, I did that a while ago. Thus, since I have already done that, i've been stating my stance and you have been ignoring it. I have been explaining in this discussion just how the subject of the article is notable, in regards to the sources that I have already added. I really don't know why you keep acting like there are no sources at all. SilverserenC 00:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However much you struggle and wriggle, reliable sources are not negotiable, and those you've cited are shite, self-published, unreliable, and, it has to be said, fall below our normal criterion of objectivity. I'd rather have no sources than self-satisfying twats. If you don't think that's a problem, you are coming from nowhere. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that you would consider Variety, USA Today, LIFE, and the Los Angeles Times to be "shite, self-published, unreliable, and...below our normal criterion of objectivity". I think pretty much every single user and administrator would disagree with you there. SilverserenC 00:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested. It's up to those seeking to make this article defensible, not me. I'm not here to mend your inadequacies, although I will assist if you ask me politely. Rodhullandemu 00:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you've completely lost me by this point. I HAVE made the article defensible by the sources i've added and I HAVE been stating my defense here in this discussion, but you haven't been listening. You keep trying to use policies that have nothing to do with what you're saying. WP:BURDEN is about unsourced material. The article is sourced with reliable sources, so that policy needs no longer apply to it. SilverserenC 00:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think that's enough, both of you have valid points but are obviously getting a bit upset. You're both experienced editors and know that this back-and-forth is not going to end in anything constructive and is not going to even be ready by the closing admin (most of it is not even about the article, but about each others' behavior and each others' understanding of policy), so can we all agree to WP:STICK and focus on letting the AfD run its course? And if no one minds, can I ((collapse)) this? rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue anymore. I'm done. I would rather you not collapse all of it, as some does relate to the article. I'm fine with you collapsing back to the undent 8 comments before yours though, the one by Rod that starts "If only you'd spend as much time". Everything between us from there to here hasn't really been about the article, but the stuff before it was. SilverserenC 03:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of animals from "The World Of Kong: A Natural History Of Skull Island" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod (Added by someone else and seconded by me) removed by author. Listcruft and WP:OR. Not even a notable list. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A can of kick ass[edit]

A can of kick ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this is an oft-used phrase. It doesn't even appear in Urban Dictionary. If anything, it could be mentioned as a variation of "Can of whoop ass" but even that is debatable. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Infinity Ward#Respawn Entertainment. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respawn Entertainment[edit]

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

IP Contested CSD. Company not notable. Might be in the future but WP is not a crystal Ball. Codf1977 (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respawn Entertainment has just been created by Jason West and Vince Zampella, who were responsible for extremely successful Call of Duty Modern Warfare Series as well as the Medal of Honor series (look these up on Wiki if there is any doubt to the commercial success of these titles) - Respawn has the backing of EA - the worlds second largest games publisher.
The founders of Respawn are currently contesting that they are the intellectual propperty owners of the Modern Warfare series.
Here is an article by ArsTechnica (an extremely well respected source often cited and quoted by BBC News and Guardian.co.uk in technology articles):
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/04/ex-infinity-ward-heads-create-respawn-entertainment-with-ea.ars
Respawn is likely to be extremely well know in a short time, I doubt it would be wise to delete the article, a rewrite maybe useful though :)
Here is a page where the BBC Quotes Ars Technica (linked above) - if it's good enough for BBC its good enough for Wiki:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7334123.stm Williambrodie (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's still covering the event, not the company. --Teancum (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Event being the key word. The event that went down between IW employees and Activision is notable, but Respawn Entertainment does not pass WP:CORP --Teancum (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point indeed. In that case, I would be happy with the "Redirect" option then, as it does strike me as a search term that users would go for. --Taelus (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. * 00:36, 23 April 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted "Rica Paras" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: unsourced BLP) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rica Paras[edit]

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

IP removed BLP PROD, taking to AfD per policy. Currently neutral as I am only taking to AfD and not requesting deletion per technicality. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Bharti[edit]

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

A junior faculty member who has written a book, but who shows no evidence of passing WP:PROF, WP:AUTH, or any other notability guideline. This was prodded, but the prod was declined by the article's creator (who, other than the prod, has been its sole contributor) without explanation. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Dean Burgon Society. Clearly a consensus to Delete this and those commenters appear to be accurate on the lack of reliable sources. Redirected to the (notable) organisation that he's head of as a reasonable search term. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D. A. Waite[edit]

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

Biography of a community leader. Does not obviously meet notability criteria. Chief contribution seems to be publishing of two books explaining ideas, but article states that subject was not originator. Also, one book has no WP article and the other one seems not to pass WP notability criteria, and I am nominating it also.

Subject has written many articles and does audiocasting, and various sites link to these, but I am not finding critical review anywhere. His body of work is well-advertised and sometimes reviewed as a product, but I do not see how this is different from any other blogger. Also, everything I am seeing is self-published and distributed; this does not indicate non-notability, but it makes this WP article look a little like self promotion. Blue Rasberry 14:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defined King James Bible is subject's main work. Blue Rasberry 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are 69,100 hits not 445 see here. Notability is not nulified because people "marginalize" ones work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.99.144 (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the the requirements for academic notability:

If you click through the Google search results to page 45 or so, you'll probably find (as I just did) that there are actually about 450 non-duplicated hits. I absolutely agree that notability under the general notability guideline is not nullified by criticism; my mention of marginalization was made with respect to its possible relevance to the alternate criteria spelled out at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I appreciate your comments with respect to these criteria, but I don't think the case is yet made that the Dean Burgon Society is a major educational institution or organization; and I would question whether the case has been made that the King James Only Movement itself qualifies as a notable "field of scholarship" in the mainstream sense contemplated by the special alternative rules at WP:ACADEMIC, as I understand them. Please note that even if a person does not pass WP:ACADEMIC they may still qualify under WP:GNG, and I remain open to seeing if that case can be made here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment President of the DBS is hardly an indication of notability. The group holds to a minority position, even among evangelicals. This is certainly not a "major academic society" as described in WP:PROF. StAnselm (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To remove the article would actually be siding with the opposition party which is already represented in many articles here... Wiki does not subscribe to a policy of Bias but one of Neutrality in such areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maranatha (talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 London Victory Parade of 1946#Political Controversy. Some material might also be merged to Polish Armed Forces in the West per Peterkingiron. Shimeru (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946[edit]

Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article hasn't gained enough interest to attract a first review in the 2 weeks since it was made. It was created in the midst of WP:CONSENSUS disagreements at London Victory Parade of 1946, where as far as I am aware there had been WP:ANI and arbitration reports and actions, as well as ongoing ARBCOM discretionary sanctions around the subject area. This article was made by an editor moving content from, and undertaken section blanking at, London Victory Parade of 1946:- so this article is known as a WP:CFORK. When this article was made, there was already supplementary content to London Victory Parade of 1946 at Polish Armed Forces in the West, where that content remains. This article has problems with WP:CLAIM, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH and therefore WP:OR. It may also have WP:COATRACK and WP:UNENCYC issues. There are also WP:NPOV issues, starting with the title, which takes a position on the debated subject of whether there was or was not Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946. For these reasons, I submit that it should be deleted. Chumchum7 (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from a glance at the discussion page from the London Victory Parade of 1946, the consensus from editors there is that this article should have been created. The idea that Polish participation may be better as a separate article was first raised by user:Jacurek on 8 October 2009 [35] saying “perhaps a separate article about the fact that Polish Armed Forces were not invited should be created.” Then on 25 October 2009 I myself proposed that a separate article be created [36]. In the replies to that proposal there was not have even a single word of objection to that proposal [37], instead I was accused of being a racist. On 29 October a completely uninvolved editor, Stephan Schulz, created a new section titled “ WP:WEIGHT issues” [38]. I again propose a new article. Nobody objects, including Chumchum7. On 21 November another uninvolved editor, Bobanni, comments “The fact that Poland did not participate in the parade is noted on the article. It should not be the focus of this article. That does not take away the insult that many Poles feel. The article should reflect the joy felt in England that the horror of WW II was over. This probably deserves an article all to itself, ie Betrayal of Poland by the Allies.” [39]. I again agree that a new article is needed [40] and nobody objects to the idea of a separate article. As we have had many different editors complaining about WP:WEIGHT problems and/or proposing that a separate article be created to cover Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 and the only editor who has ever had a word of objection to that proposal was me (and I have obviously now been convinced of the wisdom of creating such an article), we can very much conclude that the new article has overwhelming support from editors and that consensus has already been gained.
I note that although Chumchum7 mentions a number of WP policies and claims that this article breaks them but despite repeated requests, he has failed to go into detail about how the article supposedly breaks them. Isn't it interesting that he completely fails to ignore the WP:CONS that this article is necessary? Varsovian (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add a question for the proposer: the majority of the information and sources in this article refute the oft-made assertion that Poles were excluded from the parade. What do you propose is done with this information if this article is deleted? Should it simply disappear? Varsovian (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to persuasion, but a minimum requirement for me to join you in the idea would be your commitment to help us tackle the issue you have identified. Take a look at the article this has forked from, and what has been going on there for the past month, and help us deal with the issue. Please. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I`m ready, willing and able to support this idea provided we can get a commitment from Bahamut to participate in realizing this idea. As you can see at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 an administrator has identified it as a "battleground". So we need experienced assistance, for this to work. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hardly a qualified moderator. I'd like to think I'm impartial, but I'm not the right man to sort out this muck, nor do I have the time to devote to it. Like I said, you can broaden the discussion by calling in for help at MPHILHIST and possibly at WP:dispute resolution. But I will reiterate that I don't think AfD was the proper venue. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting idea. Again, whichever editor is willing to commit to seeing their idea through to the end, I'm willing to talk things through with. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the one aspect then dominates the article and the article is no longer about a British Victory parade: it is about the perception that many Poles have that Polish representatives were not invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At London Victory Parade of 1946#Political Controversy there has been quite a bit of sourcing from PBS, Norman Davies and Olson & Cloud - none of whom are Polish sources. They have all said that the Polish aspect of the parade was controversial. I am inclined toward Metropolitan90 and Stifle`s idea of a redirect, with liberty to merge, and with close attention to this administrator intervention here: [41] -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Norman Davies says that Poles participated in the parade. Olson and Cloud base their work on interviews with Polish sources. The one aspect of the British parade overpowers the rest of the article and clearly has problems with WP:WEIGHT. Varsovian (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current main article has 747 words about Polish participation at the parade and 571 words about everything else connected to the parade. I entirely agree that we should write less: perhaps "Representatives from Poland were invited but did not attend." would be suitable? All editors agree that such representatives were invited and all agree that they did not attend. Aren't topics such as the wrong Poles being invited or not enough Poles being invited etc simply PoV issues? Varsovian (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make that 949 words about Polish participation at the parade and 571 words about everything else.... Varsovian (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Aburub[edit]

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

Subject fails both WP:ATHLETE and WG:GNG; no evidence of a professional career. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image associated with http://soccerandstars.blogspot.com/2009/08/muhammed-aburub-caminho-do-fc-amares.html does not appear to be a Ghanaian. And did this player really play professional level football at the age of 15? That link is also a blog posting. Woogee (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The College of William & Mary. (non-admin closure) ℳøℕø 06:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Film and Music Festival[edit]

Global Film and Music Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Impressive sounding title but it lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Only reference provided is to a primary source. Google web search on the title brings up only this article and the official blog administer by the organizers of the film festival. RadioFan (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftek[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Created and maintained by 2 WP:SPA accounts (Jayantw and Kavitachate12) that have been systematically adding link spam to other WP articles. Previously removed in 2009 as Aftek Infosys Calltech (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Articles Aftek Ltd and Aftek Limited have been also removed in 2009 as spam. User:Aftekology has been blocked from WP for continuous spamming of WP after multiple warnings. New users mentioned above (along with anonymous IP's) are simply continuing the same practices. Calltech (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to give references to external websites from this page. (These will be websites not associated with the company). Also attempting to write this page with a neutral angle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavitachate12 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Kavitachate12 is a representative of Aftek Ltd per company blog. Calltech (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calltech, a question- do you still feel the company itself does not meet our notability guidelines?. Has that concern has been addressed? (by the third party sources i added, sources shown etc). If so we can move on to helping Kavitachate12 to editing the article without violating any of our guidelines (avoid peacocking/promotion etc). I have already removed most of her edits to the article while stubbing, so the promotional/peacocking has gone out. --Sodabottle (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a publicly traded company by itself does not establish notability WP:ORG. WP:SPA users have been continously spamming WP with EL's. 3 previous articles have been removed for both lack of notability and advertisement within the last year. Based upon these facts, my concern has not been addressed and I would like other community input on this AFD. Thanks. Calltech (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sodabottle didn't say that being a publicly-traded company establishes notability, but that the sources do. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator made several different statements. Which particular ones do you think are valid reasons for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artyem Saveliev[edit]

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

Temporary notability concerns - Wikipedia is not a news source. It does not take more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event. Articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future. --Smilemeans (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slovene Volunteer Guard[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. It has never been officially registered. There are no reliable sources available online about it except for a short mention (as Slovenska garda) in a graduation thesis about the Pekre training centre. [44] Eleassar my talk 09:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of short nz films[edit]

List of short nz films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article consists entirely of (a) unreferenced comparison of short films in N America and the rest of the world, and (b) synopses and credits for a selection of recent films. The first part is copied directly from Short film and the remainder is all lifted directly from the site http://www.nzfilm.co.nz. The synopses have now been reworded or removed. With the possible exception of The Six Dollar Fifty Man, none of the films seems to be notable and as all the article has on any of the films is copied directly from the nzfilm site, there is nothing that can be retained, even for films which are notable. Delete. I42 (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 19th Step[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The 19th Step (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF since filming has not begun. —Mike Allen 06:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uninstaller. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Spreitzer[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. The article says his one claim to fame is that he wrote a program called "Uninstaller". Whatever that program is,it doesn't have an article (the link just goes to a generic article on uninstallers, which notes that they were invented by someone else).

Granting that given the rather generic nature of the program's name it's difficult to google that particular program, I haven't found anything that indicates the program is or was seminal or important.

The article says that the program is "now" sold by CyberMedia -- but "now" is 1998, so I assume the program is long defunct. In fact, for an article created in 2005 (as this one was) to refer to 1998 as "now" seems rather fishy, redolant of a paste from some long-ago press release. It's not clear who CyberMedia is or was.

Another listed accomplishment is given as the founding of Maximized Software, which doesn't appear to be a software powerhouse: their most recent press release is dated 2002, while their flagship product is called "FlashStats 2006".

There is a person called Captain Sensible, but that is an entirely different person, Raymond Burns. The only external link given is link to Maximized Software's web page, further fueling suspicion that this article (and the second para in the Uninstaller article) are vanity or advertising. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Artist Award[edit]

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

Prior AfD (see) ended with a temporary keep to see if this year's awards on 11 April generated coverage in reliable sources. Coverage that I've found is more of what we found previously: fan sites for various young actors listing the award and no substantial coverage of the awards themselves. SummerPhD (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--

You are correct that there is no major coverage. But, there is "significant" and "reliable" coverage per WP:N. That guideline states that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. Significant coverage means "sources address the subject directly in detail" and as these articles are about the awards directly, it qualifies for significant coverage. The sources, although few, are reliable -- and these were for only a single year's coverage and only 30 seconds of searching on my part. Given that, I'm going to suggest that we squeak this by as a keep. But just squeaked by. JRP (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's certainly not a consensus to delete this, but there's no real consensus to do anything else either; a merge or redirect should be discussed at the article's talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teabagger[edit]

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

Rather Redundant, a paragraph or blurb in the tea party movement would be more than sufficient. This is a derogatory term with no historical Usage (unlike the "n-word") There is no need for it to be its own article.Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I have changed my mind on Teabagging but will propose a name change for that article in the next day or so over there.Cptnono (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a rename discussion open at Teabagging. Tea bag, Tea bag (sexual act), Tea Party movement, Tea Party protests, and a disambiguation page should be good enough. Teabagger is not needed as a redirect unless we are going to go with Teabagged, teabagging, teabagee, and so on. A teabagger could also be one who is teabagging in a sexual or video game context. Not Wiktionary.Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary[edit]

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

Not at all notable. It is a simple fan's article. --Extra999 (Contact me + contribs) 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete (WP:SNOW per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lia Montelongo (2nd nomination) & WP:BLP concerns). — Scientizzle 12:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Glynn (actor)[edit]

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

Not all that notable in regards to work. He seems to only have done this and dated another actress in the Mortal Kombat series. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenya Agarkova[edit]

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

No notability except winning a non-notable award. Rin tin tin (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Chrucky[edit]

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

There are claims to notability in the article. There are currently two sources in the article, one to the frontpage of the City Colleges of Chicago that at best just verifies he is a professor there, does not help establish notability. The other are multiple links to Chrucky's own website, this does nothing to establish notability. I have found 1 news article that mentions him in passing. None of the web results I have found for him are indepth coverage from reliable sources. Nothing I have found establishes notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.--Cast (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete WP:SNOW and WP:BLP, a compelling combination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Lia Montelongo[edit]

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

1) simply not notable

2) Lacks any solid independent sourcing

3) Has been an attractive nuisance to the subject for some four years. Used for harrassment and multiple BLP violations. See this ANI thread for full details

Different reasons here will appear to different people - the net result ought to be delete and salt. Scott Mac (Doc) 02:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominationship[edit]

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

Original research, no apparent notability. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Schreiber[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced and marginally notable BLP about a young adult who has written several books. There appears to be a link to a HarperTeen article, but it 404s and I'm having no luck finding it. A quick Google search turns up lots of fansites, but i'm coming up empty for RS.

Vampire Kisses (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a book series that she wrote, and I don't see any reason to keep it around, either. It consists of mainly character descriptions, very light on actually indicating notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 15:31, 26 March 2010 (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, 2 April 2010 (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) 00:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vampire kisses. in Booklist v. 100 no. 6 (Nov. 15 2003). and Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books v. 57 no. 2 (Oct. 2003).
Vampire kisses 2: kissing coffins in School Library Journal v. 51 no. 12 (Dec. 2005).
Vampire Kisses 3: Vampireville. in Booklist v. 102 no. 22 (Aug. 2006)., and School Library Journal v. 52 no. 11 (Nov. 2006)
Vampire kisses: blood relatives. in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books v. 61 no. 6 (Feb. 2008).,
Comedy Girl. in School Library Journal v. 50 no. 9 (Sept. 2004). [with full text] and Publishers Weekly v. 251 no. 37 (Sept. 13 2004).
Teenage mermaid. in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books v. 57 no. 1 (Sept. 2003).
I think that proves notability for both the author and the series. I've added them to the article on the author (btw, the best place to find reviews for books like this is Book Review Digest, available at any medium size or larger public or academic library) . My apologies for not adding them earlier. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off[edit]

The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable privately made film. No assertion of notability in article. No external sources, fails WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice to recreation. The topic is probably notable, but I don't see anything in the current article worth saving. Shimeru (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Education[edit]

21st Century Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced essay that appears to be one part explanation of a possible neologism, one part promotion of an organization of an Australian millionaire whose article is also under AfD, and no parts demonstration of meeting WP:CORP. Note that the originating editor is User:21stCenturyEducation. B.Wind (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability isn't everything. If we remove all WP:NOT content, the article will qualify for WP:A3. — Rankiri (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am new to using Wikipedia. I just did a search for 21st century schools, then 21st century education, and found this page. It doesn't have much on it. I believe that I could add to it. I have an article online (at my web site) entitled "What is 21st century education?". I would like your opinion as to whether something like that would be appropriate to post. The article was printed in an Australian teachers' journal, Ethos, in Australia last year. And it is also being printed in a German textbook in September of 2010. Please contact me at Director@21stCenturySchools.com The article is online at www.21stCenturySchools.com/What_is_21st_Century_Education.htm

Thank you.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of Ideas[edit]

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

The article was prodded. Prod removed without explanation. Sources added were a combination of general sources plus Rand Corporation report links. I believe that the "War of Ideas" is not a usage that, like "War on Terror", has notable usage. I request an AfD delete as this article is almost creating an original research paper based on reports named similarly, as such. Request AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 17:28, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orchard Skate Shop[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. advertisement masquerading as an article. 1 hit in gnews [53]. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nam Yang Pugilistic Association[edit]

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

This is a non-notable martial arts organization. According to the article there are only 4 schools. In addition, I can find no third party references or anything that makes this school notable according to WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash (DC animated universe)[edit]

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

This article is a creation of original research that pulls information from various Wikipedia articles on comic book characters. Specifically:

With the villains, note that 3 of the sections refer to the same two characters - and alternate universe version of the Flash that was never see on screen and a robot. Both based on "the costumes look the same".

Presenting the character of the Flash along with the 2 "casts" creates the impression that this article is dealing with "show" even though the characters are supposedly limited to Superman: The Animated Series and the Justice League/Justice League Unlimited series.

This and Wonder Woman (DC animated universe) are the latest two in a recurring "bad content" issue where articles are fabricated in this manner. Frankly, on top of the OR issue, they are an unneeded and ill-advised content fork. We have had a number of like content fork lists and articles come through AfD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the composite articles. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "articles" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's content fork. Yes, it's a bad fork. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Union of Greek Australian Students[edit]

National Union of Greek Australian Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. no significant coverage of this federation of student societies. 3 gnews hits [55]. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Soleil[edit]

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

Non-notable dancer, no notability provided, absolutely zero sources provided, this article has been sitting here for three weeks in this horrible state. A PROD tag was removed by an IP editor. Woogee (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, the craigslist entry was copypasted from the WP article, check the dates. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of characters in The Cleveland Show. Shimeru (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rallo Tubbs[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for notability since last year. This The Cleveland Show character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Money Music[edit]

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

non-notable album. The only source given makes a small reference to the album. Violates WP:CRYSTAL and pretty much WP:TenPoundHammer's Law. Str8cash (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep im just tired of dealing with this User:Str8cash he nominates every article ive created if he can just find 1 thing wrong with them even if he can't find anything wrong with them same old excuse STATicVerseatide talk 00:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STAT: Str8cash is nominating some of your articles for deletion for legit reasons. See the guidelines he/she linked in the original nomination above. These are guidelines that have been developed via years of precedent in the WP community. At least for this album, the nomination is correct. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierrot the Clown[edit]

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

Also:

Probably others.

Someone's personal opinion of a not-independently-notable song from some random album by a band of some sort. No sources (as usual). Guy (Help!) 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More of these songs in my recent contribs if anyone wants to bundle them in. Somebody tagged a bunch of them for speedy.--Chaser (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2010 (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) 00:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. P. John[edit]

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

Non-notable scholar; fails WP:PROF StAnselm (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does WP:V make you think we should keep the article? That the information is verifiable is not in doubt. What is in doubt is the notability. StAnselm (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, leading academics should have articles, but surely we should still use the criteria in WP:PROF. Anything else would be quite patronising, to say the least. What notable positions do you think he occupied? StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nacho Durán[edit]

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

Material is biographical and unsourced—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  01:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No notable secondary sources are given.
  2. The article mostly contains biographic material.

These source is the main pages of what is apparently vlogging web-site and does not directly contain information presented inline:

Videoblog Feitoamouse: http://www.feitoamouse.org/videoblog

This source is primary source; a video with no information on what it is.

Videoblog Feitoamouse: First videoblog made in South America First video-post, June 15, 2003 [56]

The sources below are main pages of various web-sites; references do not provide links to actual information. In addition, most of these fail WP:NONENG.

Academia Internacional de Cinema de São Paulo: [57]
VisualRadio: [58]
Coletivo Virtual: [59]
TeleKommando: [60] - dead
Showskills-UK: [61]
T.E.M.P.: [62] - dead
Festival Internacional de Linguagem Eletrônica: [63]
VJbr: [64]
Visual-Log: [65] - dead
randoX: [66]
Corposcópio website: [67]
Lúcia Leão: [68]
Motomix Art Music Festival 2007: [69] - dead
arte.mov: Festival Internacional de Arte em Mídias Móveis: [70]
Mostra do Audiovisual Paulista: [71] - dead
Manu Chao: [72]
Museu da Imagem e do Som de São Paulo: [73]
Fernando Velázquez: [74]
Clício Barroso: [75]
Eduardo Kac: [76]
Luiz Duva: [77]
Alex Kid: [78] - under construction
Prêmio Sérgio Motta de Arte e Tecnologia: [79]

—  H3llkn0wz  ▎talk  01:44, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Depledge[edit]

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

Is he notable? Couldn't find much information.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 00:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a "tragedy"? He played in the top division of English football. Is it a "tragedy" that a player in the Premier League nowadays is notable??? Keep. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Sleuth[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability. Contains a single, rather trivial mention in a book. EuroPride (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siegel Clyne[edit]

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

Minor non-notable character that lacks notability. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 00:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aspera GmbH[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Article does not show notability. One author, apparently an employee; reads like a press release. No reliable sources; can't find any on Google either. akaDruid (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hesp[edit]

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

Non notable artist. DimaG (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2010 (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) 00:27, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Jennings (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Non notable radio broadcaster. DimaG (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2010 (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) 00:28, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LearnVest[edit]

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

Spammy article by a WP:SPA primarily drawn from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 3 April 2010 (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) 00:04, 10 April 2010 (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) 00:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a LearnVest page because it is a notable company that has received extensive press. In the page's current state, perhaps the reliance on primary sources is too heavy. However, instead of deletion, I would like to request that it be updated to reflect more recent sources (such as the New York Times and Fortune). Asfp20 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC) — Asfp20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • LearnVest suffices as a credible and notable personal finance resource for women. The website has already received extensive media attention and does not need additional advertising through Wikipedia; rather, the page educates the public on the information based and educational resource. I would agree that the page should be updated to reflect more recent sources rather than be deleted. ccf920 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC) — ccf920 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Price (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2010 (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) 00:04, 10 April 2010 (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, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Graham Scott[edit]

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

No indication of notability, BLP CynofGavuf 10:03, 10 April 2010 (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, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Bull's Blood Society[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Order of the Bull's Blood Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough sources to make it worthy of being separate from Rutgers CynofGavuf 09:51, 10 April 2010 (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, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Velasquez[edit]

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

Not enough sources to indicate notability CynofGavuf 09:50, 10 April 2010 (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, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Berry[edit]

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

I will admit to being torn on this issue myself, as I think the issue is a close one. This young man's tragic death did receive nationwide press, and I do believe that certain notorious deaths can cause an otherwise non-notable person to become notable. Still, I feel this case has the hallmarks of a transitory news story. I don't see the sort of lasting press coverage that I think distinguishes encyclopedic subjects from passing obituaries. Weak Delete under WP:NOTTHENEWS. Xoloz (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2010 (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, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Junior university football player, clearly not notable for a wikipedia biography apart from his sad death. I doubt if the murder itself is worthy of an article, murder is common place and not notable in itself. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hylite[edit]

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

Non-notable hip hop group with a blank allmusic page (no reviews or chart presence). The one source does not even mention Hylite. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2010 (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, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The assertion of notability made by User:DGG has not been disuputed. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart G. Bugg[edit]

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

Non notable "lawyer, author and consultant" only claim to notability appears to be as co-author of two books Codf1977 (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (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, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is named as a founder of efms, an organization that does not get a lot of hits (again, not proof, but an organization founded in 1983 with almost no hits isn't scoring well on a notability scale. In addition, his name is listed at the end of the bylaws, which suggests he was involved in drafting the bylaws, but that doesn't necessarily make him a founder. Perhaps he is, but I don't see clear evidence.
I see he is coauthor of two books, unfortunately I find little evidence these two books are notable. Perhaps my searching was incomplete, I'd be happy if more could be found which would tip my opinion to keep, but based upon what is presented, and what I could find, I'm not seeing notability.--SPhilbrickT 14:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ {www.worldcat.org/wcidentities/lccn-n2002-36303]
More