< 8 April	10 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brimstone (wrestler)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Almost all references link back to the wrestler's personal pages, or youtube videos with 1,000 hits. Mentions of comicbooks, clothing lines, or books which appear notable bring up nothing on google. Comic was apparently never made, last update was 2007. Nothing on biography or clothing line except announcements on Brimestone's personal site. As a pro-wrestler he never worked with anyone notable, or for any notable company (none have their own WP page) during his brief career. Highlight of wrestling career was being ring-crew at one TNA TV taping. Highlight of acting career was one episode of Sesame Street as a child. Other career highlights seem to be attending events with minor celebrities, then putting that news on his website and MySpace page. BoosterBronze (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator originally left his text at the bottom of the first AfD. I have reverted that and created this page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's quite notable, the article is well sourced, he has wrestle for notable wrestling organizations (but not WWE, maybe that's why he is famous only among the wrestling fans), and the article is well written. Jeangabin (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject seems to meet the Wikipedia criteris for notability. The article is well sourced, and fairly well written. While I think it could use a little clean-up, I don't think that's grounds for deletion. -Fall Of Darkness (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In agreeing with the other users, there seems to be more than enough notability especially compared to many other wrestling biography articles on wiki. The article is well sourced and he seems to have done more with himself than just wrestling. RingWars2007 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an outside non-wrestling fan, I say it should be kept. Clearly by the number of ref's, some of which I checked and the seem reliable, his notability can be well established. The article is extremly well sourced (one of the best sourced articles I have ever seen). It was a unanimous keep the first time around, and should be kept. Maybe a copy-edit to clean it up a little, but other then that I see no problems. --NavyBlue84 15:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close A very expansive article which is very well referenced. The references are not what BoosterBronze is claiming they are. Some formatting and clean up would be done over the course of time. This article should not ever be here. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Why was this even nominated for deletion? Get Dumb 12:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep I agree 100 percent with Punk! RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 23:20, 15 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) 21:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Wilkins[edit]

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

Blatant self-promotion for unelected candidate in upcoming election. All references refer only to this fact and his young age. This article was already deleted once, but somehow speedy delete was denied the second time. Some mention of youth work, but this hardly passes inclusion requirments. Dmol (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Self promotion. Not notable yet he might deserve an article if he's elected but otherwise it's just promotional conjecture "COULD be the youngest candidate in the UK's 2010 general election, and IF he's elected he will be Britain’s youngest current Politician."Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The general rule in WP:POLITICIAN is to redirect candidates to the election page. But this guy isn't even a candidate yet so I'm not sure that serves any useful purpose. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence anywhere that this person satisifes any of the notability guidelines, whether WP:NOTE, WP:POLITICIAN or any other. In fact in my opinion the article qualifies for a speedy deletion, as the purpose of the article is unambiguously promotion. It was created by the user Luke wilkins, and I see no reason to doubt that he is indeed Luke Wilkins. Curiously enough one of Luke wilkins's edit summaries is "Made the Article less neutral". At first I thought this must mean something other than what it looked like, but having read it, and considered it in context of the editor's other edits, I now think it means exactly what it said: he had decided that it was not promotional enough and edited it to make it more so. As I said, in my opinion speedy delete, but failing that just delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to constituency per recent convention. NN until elected. Please bring back to AFD, if he fails to submit nomination papers to become an actual candidate rather than PPC. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What recent convention? Can you give links? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WT:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#Articles on Prospective Parliamentary Candidates for Election 2010 is what is being referred to. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to constituency as per many similar recent articles. Warofdreams talk 15:35, 15 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 Thornhill, Ontario#Education. Feel free to change it to the York Region article if consensus says that one fits better. Shimeru (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brownridge Public School[edit]

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

Delete. A one-line article of a school that is obviously not notable. JForget 23:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Thornhill, Ontario#Education where the school is mentioned. This is normal practice for nn elementary schools outside the US and could have just been done. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school district, York Region District School Board. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Colona[edit]

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

~~Might be wrong but I don't see anything notable about her besides the time she was born...~~ SKATER ^Speak. 23:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the evidence found I see now that I was wrong and retract the nomination.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I can't find much more detail about this individual online—appears to be a dead-end cultus confirmation. (That process is not useful for demonstrating notability, given that it's for the express purpose of veneration.) TheFeds 21:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Anupam & David Eppstein, more information found using the other form of her name ("Colonna"). That coverage still isn't fantastic, but given that she was born in 1284, it certainly rises beyond trivial. Changing to keep. I suppose the page should be moved, if "Margaret Colonna" is the preferred spelling. TheFeds 19:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:V: the individual has her own article at the Catholic Encyclopædia and is mentioned in several pieces of literature at Google Books. I should note that upon evaluating this case, I discovered that another common spelling of her name is Blessed Margaret Colonna. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching Google books for "Margaret Colonna" finds many with nontrivial coverage of her. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 12 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. Discounting all of the 'keep because it's always been kept' !votes, there is still no consensus to delete. That said, the article does seem to still be in a rather problematic state. The topic, as Maziotis says, seems notable... but I'd be quite tempted to go with "delete and start over," if I thought there were any possibility that would help matters. Suppose the best that can be done for now is to hope for improvement. Shimeru (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States and state terrorism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been problematic for over five years. It violates WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV persistently because it is a WP:COATRACK. The solution is to delete this fork, and place any relevant content in the appropriate articles, such as those related to the incidents mentioned, or to United States history articles, or the histories of the named conflicts or covert actions. We should not be scraping up bits and pieces of different things to create unbalanced, unacademic, unencyclopedic articles as has been done here. Five years is long enough. Repeated nominations have resulted in the same old refrain that it can be fixed. We shouldn't accept that argument any longer. The article hasn't been fixed after so much time because it can't be fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More prior AfDs:

Discussion

Delete as I explained above and move any salvageable bits to the relevant articles. Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep + a vote to stop wasting everyone's time -- If I'm forced to I'll respond with the numerous arguments against this in the LAST 8 DELETION DISCUSSIONS WHICH HAVE ALL RESULTED IN "KEEP" (yes, I just screamed at you) ... but I'd really rather not repeat myself and everyone else there, again. Please stop wasting people's time here, and go and read the last 8 discussions to see why this simply is not going to happen. Spend your time improving the article (which is already pretty good, and is extremely well sourced, and only seems to cause problems with people who are pushing a POV and are unable to provide sources for any of their claims ...). Provide reliable sources when you do so. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last discussion was in 2008. Please stop yelling, and stop being rude. That is not at all helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's rude to waste people's time with another discussion here, when you are not providing any new reasons for a new discussion. All of your reasons have been responded to several times in each of the previous discussions. Forcing people to repeat things to you from those discussions is not at all helpful either. So please go and work to improve the article. But provide reliable sources when you do so. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you point out any book title or section called "United States and state terrorism". How is this topic not something contrived and stitched together? I could write an article Wikipedia and anti-social behaviors with plenty of references, but that would neither be encyclopedic nor balanced. Jehochman ^Talk 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me a book titled identity matrix or Actinopterygii? Does that mean they shouldn't have an article? Perhaps you should go and read the sources for the article you are trying to delete, which all discuss (what they claim are) state terrorist acts committed by the United States. There are dozens of sources in the article, and several references for further reading. If I were to make a recommendation for you, I'd say to check out Western State Terrorism, which is one of the aforementioned resources. Your argument regarding Wikipedia and anti-social behaviors is not valid -- the problem is that there is not a large number of books which discuss the connections between Wikipedia and anti-social behaviors -- if there were, I would see no problem writing an article on it. On the other hand, there are dozens or even hundreds of books and papers which make allegations of state terrorism against the United States. But again, this has all been discussed several times already (please read the previous 8 deletion discussions)-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And if you want books which contain "state terrorism" and "United States" in the title, or as the names of sections, just look at the books that are listed in the Google books results. But again, this is not a relevant criteria for judging whether or not an article should be kept. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep the article, please do something to improve its quality. After five years of editing, it is still C-class. The best way to prove me wrong would be to turn this into a good article, or better. Start by specifying "who" rather than "some say". Use secondary sources to show what historians think about these matters. Accusations by one group of idiot politicians against another group of idiot politicians mean very little. This article contains too much mud slinging, and not enough facts. Show what the academics are saying, not the touts. Jehochman ^Talk 02:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of C class articles that don't need to be deleted, just because they haven't quickly been improved to good article status. That is another invalid argument. I am under no obligation to rush to make the article reach good article status just to prevent it from being deleted, so you have no grounds for making such a demand. Please refer me to some rule that says "If an article has not reached Good status after 5 years, it should be deleted" -- seriously, I'd love to see it. As far as the article containing "too much mud slinging, and not enough facts", perhaps you should look at the sources and verify that in fact the article contains hundreds of facts (You calling it mudslinging doesn't make it reality.) And as far as "what the academics are saying", again, please see the article and it's sources -- most of the claims are by academics, so if you want to see what they are saying, read the article. And even if they weren't saying what they are saying (i.e. the contents of the article you are trying to delete), academics are not the only sources which people are allowed to use on Wikipedia -- there are many other types of reliable sources -- take a look at the guidelines in WP:RS. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep' as most of the old AfDs are "keep" or "speedy keep", and their reasoning still applies. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC) -- — 65.94.253.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy keep'/change title - This article is about the alleged accusation of the United States to be a "terrorist state". Given the sources, there is no reason why we cannot write an article about this subject, taking care to treating it with NPOV discretion. I have always believe it should be titled "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States of America", which is a move that you might consider discussing it separately. As for the subject itself, the encyclopedia allows the creation of artciles about this kind of specific topics. This one in particular is discussed in the field of political science in our universities. It is a notable subject. Maziotis (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont like its current title, I prefer the older one which was Allegations of State terrorism by.... The article is written from that title's point of view. Is It POV?, well no because all allegations have also a counter point from a balanced perspective. The article has not improved in 5 years is also no valid argument as it has improved considerably through these years. Sections have been added and deleted and points constatly argued about. This article may or may not expose the limitation of collaborative editing that Wikipedia is built on. No doubt it is one of the most difficullt ones but I for one dont belive that we have reached the capacity of editors to work together in creating meanfull, nuanced content that relies on RS sources but also maintains NPOV. Kanatonian (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussions. The fact that this article has survived eight prior AfDs is all I need to know. IMO, this article hasn't been fixed because no one has fixed it, not because it can't be fixed. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep reluctantly. As a topic, this does have independent existence. It is unfortunate that the subject matter is being hijacked by editors with a political agenda but that is, apparently, a sad by-product of wikipedia. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. An article may appear to meet our criteria for inclusion - as this one appears to - and still be unsuitable in other ways. There's no rush to improve the article, as Jrtayloriv indicates - but, turn that around. You've had several years to improve this article, and the nominator correctly notes that this hasn't happened. It does raise the question of whether the topic is suitable. Sandstein's excellent close at the last AFD (when the article was indeed "Allegations of..." rather than the current title) explains many of these issues, and is persuasive - but the same concerns keep popping up again and again. I agree, there's no requirement to move this past C-class, but why wouldn't you want to do so? A cleaner, more obviously neutral article wouldn't be repeatedly nominated for deletion as this one has. I don't particularly like this article, and I think sections in relevant articles on the subjects would be better overall (and the number of "Main article" tags backs this up), but the subject is notable and sourceable - so we keep as per policy. But it's hinky. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per WP:SNOW. --JokerXtreme (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep For all reason stated above Rammer (talk) 09:25, 16 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) 01:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACMEAffiliates[edit]

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

Non-notable. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 22:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Meets criteria for speedy deletion, in my opinion. Cptmurdok (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I agree, it should be speedily deleted. Str8cash (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a company founded in 2010 with no evidence for notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 13 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 redirect to War of Knives. NW (Talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Castes in Haiti[edit]

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

This article appears to be about War of Knives, which makes this article redundant. Maybe some of the information could be merged. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with proposer. Interestingly, the more established article has no inline citations. If our new editor has a new source, perhaps he could annotate the text, as well as add some new information. I'd be happy to show him/her how to make the inline citations. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge [some of] the content is probably worthy of saving if it can be cited. Merge with War of Knives. SGGH ^ping! 22:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per SGGH. Guettarda (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no given reason for deletion, but only for merging, which could be uncontroversially done here. And that was the consensus was at ANI --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and merge. Completely pointless AFD; just redirect it. – iride scent 00:24, 10 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 keep Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antocha[edit]

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

Moving from MFD. Rationale was "Without any good links their really is no point for this article." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep Article about a genus, of obvious notability. Needs expansion. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; this is a baffling nomination. – iride scent 22:15, 9 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) 01:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Leopardos[edit]

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

I encountered this because a number of the players have been prodded as unsourced BLPs. This is not my subject, but I can't help wondering if the team itself is notable, given that we do not have an article for their league, nor any other article which mentions the league. For the full article see the article history--most of the information originally present was recently deleted as unsourced. An article on them was prev. speedied as created by a banned user, Marquess31. There was no additional information there , or any sources. There seems to be some material in Google, but it's either WP mirrors or Facebook pages. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nom. Codf1977 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no WP:RS results on Google. — Rankiri (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 06:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence of them competing in the Timorese national league (no mentions on RSSSF whatsoever), and most of the Google hits are Wiki pages and mirrors. Bettia (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with the nominator that this appears to be a non-notable (or non-existant) football team. Big Dom 21:06, 13 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) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Causeway Regional Antler Poker Series[edit]

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

Contested prod. Not notable group GregJackP (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no Google hits except Facebook and no refs given, this looks like a delete to me. Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unsourceable. It reads like a "poker series" that happens at somebody's house. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly just a bunch of mates who get together to play poker and decided to dream up a "clever" name for it. Not notable at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 15 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) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porse Holisher[edit]

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

Hoax. From looking at the page history, it looks like User:Nadoligllawen copied the legitimate article Grzegorz Nowak (conductor), removed the bottom half, and replaced it with nonsense. Brucey bonus my conductor's baton! Shame that it lived two months, but that's probably because nothing linked to it. A few days ago, User:Rettetast somehow found it and tagged it unreferenced BLP, which is how I found it, working for WP:URBLP; but I think it needs a bit more than a tagging. GRuban (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks and smells like a hoax, and it is. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could probably be speedy deleted as a hoax (which it definitely is), but this AfD will lead to same result a week later. Kudos to User:Nadoligllawen for getting some attention. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. such good taste, a decent hoaxer would have asked for it to be deleted, considering the news this week.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 12:59, 15 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) 22:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Night Music (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL much? The episode isn't even going to air for another month; we don't have any information to put here. Ironholds (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AdamDeanHall knows better by now not to create these articles since we went through the same process last year with the series' last episodes of the season, and I have chastised him in the past for this. Sourcing is from a list of titles from Zap2It, which is not reliable as the network has no PR at all for the episode as of yet. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redict to Desperate Housewives for now. when more information will be avaible, article can be restored--SveroH (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:32, 15 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) 22:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Devane[edit]

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

Fictional character in a soap opera- not notable enough to warrant an article. Merge and redirect to All My Children, the show itself. ALI ^{nom nom} 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect Not enough for its own article, character doesn't even appear to have been on the show for that long. mauler90 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nicholas Devane is not a character on All My Children, just more false information User:Evil223 has been adding to Wikipedia today [1]. Rocksey (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge as is usual. , it could have been proposed on the talk p. of the main article and then done if there was no disagreement . DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 11 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) 22:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rap Phenomenon[edit]

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

Non-notable mixtape, fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge the information and redirect to the appropriate article(s). Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing worth merging. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 13 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) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NopCommerce[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Eeekster (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. andy (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, cannot find signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 15:25, 10 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) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Soldier (cyborg)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, recounts plot details already explained in the articles for the 5 films. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to explain something again when explained five other times. If there was WP:USELESSARTICLE, then this would be a good time to bring it up. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- pointless duplication of plot details already found in the other articles. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 11 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) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crafty Simian[edit]

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

Not notable. No significant mainstream achievements. Andrew Duffell (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crafty Simian have relesed records,appeared in the NME, toured with some of the biggest bands in the uk and are signed to redzonemusic so they should nok be deleted as they are relevent in todays music scene —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen66 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some references for your statements, because a quick google search doesn't seem to bring anything up. In fact, I can't find any evidence of 'redzonemusic' existing. Andrew Duffell (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page there is a link to redzonemusic site in the references along with other links to sites provinding all the relevent references needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen66 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The RedZoneMusic site is being used as a reference for them being signed to RedZoneMusic, but on inspection of their one page website it doesn't say anywhere on it that Crafty Simian are one of their artists. Also, RedZoneMusic in themselves appear none-notable.

crafty simian only signed to them 2 weeks ago and if you research band managment very few managment companys advertise themselfs online try finding the oasis managers and you will see they have no website! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen66 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a valid citation for it please. Also, the NME "interview" turns out to be a letter sent to the unsigned bands letters page in NME! Any band can get on that page. http://twitpic.com/QVST6

I'd also like the question what your connection to the band is? I think you may have a conflict of interest in this article. Andrew Duffell (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a convincing case for meeting WP:BAND guidelines. Appears to be written by either band members or people closely associated with the band, as this is not a major band with a fanbase. Additionally, the article is of very poor quality. Enigma^msg 19:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 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) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Enigma. Doesn't seem notable at least at this point. mauler90 (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if all the above were thoroughly referenced, I still don't see anything that meets WP:MUSICBIO. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:24, 9 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) 23:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Eden[edit]

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

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

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

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

PROD removed without reason. Non-notable performer who fails WP:ENT Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the above reasoning. This is nothing more that a devious and spiteful attempt to defame and degrade a performer of great respect in the magic entertainment field. --User:Keevents

Delete I agree with the above reasoning. --Pstanton (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not !delete~~ Keep I disagree with the above reasoning. An email has been sent to Wikipedia to dispute these unnecessary Articles. The page Kurt Eden meets all WP Requirements. User Avlts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avlts (talk • contribs) 03:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. I also changed the wording of the !vote above to !Keep so it would show up properly in the AfD stats. (GregJackP (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ENT from what I can see. That said, he may be notable under WP:N - although I doubt it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Hire Kurt Eden of Knoxville, Tennessee for your Wedding, Corporate Event, or Private Party." "$200-$1500 per event" Might be a different Kurt Eden. No, on examination it's the same one. http://www.gigmasters.com/Magician/kemagic/ I am puzzled by the external link "CBS Radio Article" which looks like KAPS Paranormal Radio when you go to it, and refers the visitor to Kurt's website and MySpace without giving anything solid itself. Establishes existence only - which is more than the IBM one does. No mention on that page at all. He is a 'rising star' according to some. Fair enough. Come back when risen a bit more - or provide better references (none at all provided yet) from independent reliable sources. Peridon (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"KAPS Paranormal Radio is proudly powered by Podbean and ChaoticSoul v1.0.1 (by Bryan Veloso)" - doesn't sound like CBS would to me, but I've never heard CBS. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I wouldn't have been looking at this if it hadn't been for the vandalism by Avlts (above) and another IP (a sock, no doubt), who keep removing "delete" votes. Avlts, keep that up and you'll have an indefinite block real soon. Drmies (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I restored the discussion that Avlts deleted again and did an AIV - hopefully that will put a stop to it. (GregJackP (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Should be taken care of now. - Vianello (Talk) 03:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a case of 'Now you see it, now you don't'.... Peridon (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Avlts and or IP users Deleting or revising the discussion is a waste of your time. We just put it back every time. And doing it only damages your case. You'd be better looking for references to prove us wrong. Peridon (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that the references provided meet/prove any listed WP:ENT criteria. - Vianello (Talk) 22:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. The page Kurt Eden is in good standing with WP. There is no reason to delete this page. Even though the page is at the entry stages doesn't call for deletion and unnecessary comments. Please discontinue this patter. Thank you.

~~Do not delete~~. These comments and delete request are devious attempts to defame and degrade a performer of great respect in magic entertainment. We realize the article Kurt Eden is at an entry stage with minimum references. However, the whole purpose of a Wikipedia page is to build true biographies of a people that spend their life doing uncommon things. Who’s to say that the page Kurt Eden is not noble? Come on! This is ridiculous. Just because a person doesn’t have a worldwide fan base and missed the Oscars, doesn’t mean they’re not noble. The performer Kurt Eden is making way in the magic entertainment industry, headlining at major universities and venues across the US. Starting in October 2010, there will be better references of performances and features of the performer Kurt Eden. Again, this is an entry page that is in total compliance with Wikipedia. There is nothing misleading or out of line. Please discontinue these comments and spiteful attempts of deletion. 08:48, 13 April 2010 Kevents (talk) (sig added by (GregJackP (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC))) (strikethrough added as Kevents has already !voted. Peridon (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Judging from the contributions of experienced editors here, the article is not, in fact, in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines--such as WP:N and WP:RS. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I can't find any reliable sources. ----Nuujinn (talk) 00:51, 14 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.

Symbol of Christ[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Non-admin closure per Floquenbeam. Acebulf (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is not a Bible study group Rd232 ^talk 17:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not-notable. We have plenty of very good articles relating to the Holy Bible, but this article is about a vision that the article's author had had. I don't see any evidence that notice has been taken of it by the media [2] or even on websites [3], so it doesn't meet our notability requirements. Mandsford (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete.I've replaced the speedy template for the third and last time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexHOUSE (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable personal interpretation of certain verses in the bible. Acebulf (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Deleteper above. Maybe stop the editor from creating new articles? mauler90 (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable promotion, makes no real sense as written and could probably have been speedy deleted as nonsense?Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've speedy-deleted the article and blocked the author; if someone more familiar with AFD could do the necessaries, it would save me having to read the admin instructions again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 9 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson Schools[edit]

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

Previously deleted article (twice) about a private school of questionable notability with a history of WP:COI editors. Provided references are either simple directory listings or do not mention the school. No indication of importance or notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. EuroPride (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.
Keep for the reasons spelled out at WP:HS/N. Search string <"Colegio Peterson"> generates 31 hits in Google Books and about 400 hits at Google Mexico. This school is the only one in Mexico affiliated with the Independent Schools Association of the Southwest[4], which is prima facie verification of its existence and, given the other schools in that group, testimony to its notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not appear that User:Chzz, who (based on this history) is a major non-COI contributor to this article, was notified of this AfD, so I have done so. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Arxiloxos. My involvement was, that the new user asked for my help when it was tagged as speedy. I helped tidy it up, remove the spam content, and advised the user on how to improve it. I will thus not !vote in this deletion proposal. Chzz ► 22:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fully accredited, not-for-profit private high school and there are a range of sources available from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this article can be salvaged and it merits a mentionSteven1969 (talk) 01:49, 11 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) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scribble People[edit]

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

Non-notable webcomic; contested speedy (although I wasn't the one that nominated it). Google comes up with mainly Facebook and Twitter pages, and it also appears that the article was started by a relative of the comic's creator, thus failing WP:COI. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Per WP:WEB. No secondary sources cited or otherwise found. Cptmurdok (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls WP:N and there doesn't currently seem to be a way to address that. (Emperor (talk) 22:51, 10 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. JForget 00:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nayef Bin Mamdooh Bin Abdulaziz Aalsoud[edit]

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

So far from the line of succession that "notable, royal family" isn't valid here, particularly since there seems to be no coverage and no evidence he's done anything vaguely important. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are some claims to notability in the article. Is there an article on him in the Arabic Wikipedia? Are there any Google News hits which you search for his Arabic name? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no news hits, we can do without an article on this "Tower of women". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not favor deleting unsourced BLPs as a general matter, but this article is almost incoherent, utterly unsourced, and appears enormously difficult to source, of a subject whose notability is highly dubious. Ray^Talk 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Royalty is often per se notable, but this person is too remotely related to the current monarch to be so deserving. Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article needs references, seems to be known for writing books, not so much as being royalty.Charles F Groves 19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakee73 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ashlee[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. May fail WP:PORNBIO - There is no reference to establish that he won the award. EuroPride (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- He obviously fails WP:N. RaaGgio (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes PORNBIO - the previous source was deleted and not replaced as can be seen in the page history. One suitable reference is http://www.grabbys.com/PastWinners.html and the award itself is described with other potential source material at Grabby Award and Grabby recipients. In this case a tag for improving references would have been more appropriate than raising for deletion. Ash (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the repeated deletion of sources, including grabby.com, I thought the following may be useful in resolving the issue:
  - http://business.avn.com/articles/34692.html - an independent report on the original nominations explicitly naming Ashlee.
  - http://grabbys.com/nominations-2009.html - click on "All" or "Scenes" to see full listing with Ashlee named.
  - http://www.xbiz.com/avi/101369 - XBIZ listing for BlackBalled6 showing full cast. This listing is not promotional for any particular reseller.
- Ash (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EXCELLENT! Please include them and remove cn tag. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ash. He co-won a Grabby Award and passes WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ash. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above Ip has been hardblocked for a year along with a number of ips involved with attempted outing, trolling, etc... Details at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Rusty Trombone.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there is no in depth coverage of this person, anywhere, fails BIO and GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that 4 resources have been added. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of them a reliable source. Retail wanking sites and wanking-fan blogs aren't reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about the grabby site itself, which has now been added? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This man had 8 co-winners in the Best Cum scene category in the 2009 Grabbys, run by the tiny free weekly Grab Magazine in Chicago. If one actually believes that "award" is enough to hang an entire encyclopedic biography on, then that's the case for the other 8. Of course, all 9 will not have any biographical information or even correct birth names. It pretty clearly demonstrates how low the bar has been set by the porn project's guidelines. These are not the Academy Awards (though i would argue that even an academy award winner no one has seen fit to profile should not have a wikipedia article; it's just for truly notable awards like the Academy's, every winner does get covered heavily in reliable sources). For instance, there are about 25 Academy Award categories (but frequent co-winners, so lets say about 35 winners a year). The "Grabbys" have 31 categories. Of these "best group" includes five winners every year, "best duo" is obvious, best "three way" ditto, best "rimming scene" is for two winners, and "best cum scene" appears to range from 2 to as many as 9. So what we have is a Grab magazine porn marketing event (the magazine is heavily porn and escort focused -- you can dowload sample issues at it's amateur-hour website) creating 44 "winners" a year. That's more than the academy awards does! And is this the academy awards of porn, or even of gay porn? Nope: That would be the GayVN Awards, which have a mammoth 44 categories of their own (each category with about 10 nominees) cranking out between them potentially 100 new unsourced wikipedia blps a year. Amazing!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's all correct. Take up policy with WP:PORNBIO, not article by article. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and non-notable. Porn sites as cites do not cut it. Jack Merridew 16:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the grabby site itself? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You want to include porn references, as long as they're not porn references. Is that right? The grabby site stands, if none other. This performer won that award. Do you have a particular POV that you want this excluded? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That award doesn't mean boo and your link doesn't even mention this fellow. If I've a PoV here, it's that articles require proper sources that discuss their subjects in depth. Jack Merridew 16:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't think the award doesn't mean boo, but you may want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grabby_Awards for the full history, verifying that, indeed, it does mean boo. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is just no coverage to ever create a well rounded informative biography of this person. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the article a "stub", not worthy of deletion, right? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That argument makes no sense. ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Grabby awards have been used to satisfy WP:PORNBIO in many other gay porn performer BLPs without much argument. The sticking point here appears to be that the winner of this award has been identified as "entire cast on Dylan Sanders" rather than listing each member of the cast. I've suggested elsewhere that there needs to be a discussion of which awards should be considered acceptable for WP:PORNBIO. This AfD probably isn't the right place to do it, but it would forestall these kinds of debates, so would someone with a better knowledge of specific awards care to start it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as winning a group award is a bit of a stretch for notability, even by the the already tenuous WP:PORNBIO "standards". Tarc (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tarc's argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability as ably argued by Bali U et al. WP:PORNBIO is fatally flawed, and every article that is deleted despite citing it, is one more argument for fixing it (eventually??). ++Lar: t/c 12:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pornbio is descriptive and no longer reflects consensus. This fails what pornbio would read if it reflected broader community consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is worth looking up a bit from WP:PORNBIO on the same guideline page, where it says, "meeting one or more [of the additional notability criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This is a case where a subject barely squeaks past one supplementary criterion, but is otherwise lacking for anything reliably sourced to say about him, and because of that there is no sound basis for an article. I also have to agree with others that the idea that getting 1/9th of an award from a minor local advertising coatrack establishes notability is a sign of deficiency in the notability guideline. The language that suggests notability is established by any award from the 31 ceremonies listed in Category:Pornographic film awards (plus any of the non-porn awards in Category:Film awards), is grossly over-generous compared to similar guidelines for other types of performers. --RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 12 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. Consensus is that enough sourcing exists to establish notability, as shown by changes since the nomination. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robosapien: Rebooted[edit]

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

Future films are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two references. --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Both sources clock in at four sentences each. I don't see that as "substantial coverage". - SummerPhD (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Userfy - Per WP:NFF, there is no coverage to show filming has commenced.--Sodabottle (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep switching as sources have been added to source the start of filming and notability has already been established by GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the NYT reference noting the status as "Production/Awaiting Release", which certainly seems to me to imply that filming is underway. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per WP:NFF, we need it to be, "confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography ...". What a status from "(one source) implies" to you is not the same as what "reliable sources confirm". There is simply too little coverage on this. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. as per below. none of this establishes notability, the NY TIMES "article" is created for every movie. and the second half of WP:NFF disqualifies this article at this point. Both establishing filming is underway AND NOTABILITY is required. -Tracer9999 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just popping in.... to say... "still keep". Harranguing those who argue keeping an article seems overly aggressive. I see more refs have been added, yet a couple of the delete !voters seem to be textwalling everyone who doesn't agree with them. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -hmm..it seems interesting how every "keep" editor avoids the subject of notability . Im wondering If I actually need to explain to veteran editors what it means...That would be scary -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added more references indicating the film was shot and has indeed wrapped production and currently is in post-production. Also added original plot synopsis back into article which came from the film production company Crystal Sky's own website. Crystalsky.com is currently unavailable because the site is undergoing a redesign, which began about a month ago. The erroneous copyright violation claim indicated in the articles history stating the text came from filmofilia.com is false. That site "borrowed" their summary from Crystal Sky as well, and even cite Crystal Sky as the source which can be found on that page just above the poster. If I understood how to add that poster to the article page I would, since it also comes from Crsystal Sky, but not sure of the "fair use" rules. Lacinius (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've removed the copyright violation again. That the text comes from the production company does not negate their copyright on the text. If you would like to add a plot summary based on their summary, without copying the text, please do. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - From those sources, I do not see that production has wrapped. I see no indication that the "unavailable" Crystalsky.com began a redesign "about a month ago". Do you have some connection to Crystal Sky? (Incidentally, I don't read "“Robosapien: Rebooted” is scheduled to hit theaters in 2009. [source: Crystal Sky]" as saying "We copied text verbatim from that site.") - SummerPhD (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You already dismissed the /Film reference I provided that indicates the production has wrapped, because it apparently does not meet the criteria as a legitimate and reliable site. I'm sure this is probably an old argument somewhere on Wikipedia, but if /Film is not considered a reliable film site on the Internet, then no site on the Internet should be considered valid. /Film is more than just some site at blogger.com, as most other Internet film sites often quote /Film for their own content. I'm not sure why you brought up filmofilia.com again, which by the way apparently is a legitimate source since you used that page as the reason why you deleted the plot summary from the article for being in copyright violation and yet /Film is not legitimate, when I just pointed out that they took their summary direct from the Crystal Sky site. Looking at the site again, do you see how the plot summary is in blue text, that's a site convention and designates what they copied verbatim from Crystal Sky. It's the exact same text as was quoted in the article for the plot summary. Filmofilia's own words are in grey text, and the [source: Crystal Sky] in square brackets applies to the whole article, because that is where they got all the information from, but I guess it might look a little odd since they stuck an advert in the middle of their article. I mentioned Crystal Sky is currently unavailable and why, just as a courtesy in case someone tried to visit the site and the page would not load. Not that any of this matters much at this point, since I have rewritten the plot summary and added that to the article... and I do understand that if there was a copyright violation, then it would have been with Crystal Sky, which is why I went ahead and rewrote the summary. Lacinius (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I originally removed the prod because there does seem to be alot of hits on a google search and I felt a prod was prob not the best way to decide this, with the hope more people would go through the large amount of search engine hits and hopefully establish notability. I accept that this is not a hoax and the movie definatly exists or at least went into production at some point. The question is.. wether it is notable or not. Does anyone have a ref that says children all across america are awaiting the release of Robosapien: Rebooted. The refs Ive seen so far seem to be basically PR blurbs that the film is in production. or local blurbs saying company B is coming to town to make a movie.. (For instance the NY times one is basically just a setup of the company supplied plot with a spot for users to vote and review when it comes out.) Those references alone do not make it notable (maybe it would make it notable for inclusion on company B's article if company B is a notable company or the maybe directors page as a work in progress. but not an article on its own). Is this a sequel or something that has a following that the news is covering. Ill change my vote if after people have added references establishing notability until then Im leaning with not notable yet. Id also like to point out crystalsky.com was last archived by archive.org on may 1, 2008 with nothing at all for the year 2009, which is rather strange, are they still in business? an error page is not generally how a webmaster does construction. How again, did you come by that information?-Tracer9999 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - Archive.org is not an infallible service since their May 2008 archive does not even list Robosapien as an upcoming project. However, obviously the information must exist since that last archive, because numerous sites like Filmofilia and /Film would not directly cite the company website as the source for their information and initial film poster, etc. Crstal Sky must still be in business if another of their productions Tekken was just released in Japan at the end of last month. Similar to the Tekken film, I would say those that are anticipating the Robosapien film the most are those that are involved in the large community surrounding the Robosapien robotics line of products. Lacinius (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - archive.org usually doesn't skip years. every other year it was updated several times. Judging by the fact a professional company would just totally remove thier entire webpresence I would say its most likely they were slow in updating it. slso thier email bounces:

info@crystalsky.com: 550 5.1.1 User unknown

the domains whois contact - tomc@crystal-sky.com - 550 550 No Such User Here (state 14) The site crystal-sky which they apparently own is now apparently a blog about things like "Take Care of Your Hayabusa Motorcycle Parts" " what drymouth is and how to avoid it"

as for tekken films. who is to say they did not sell the rights to the film to another production company. and the speculation of the robosapian community is not notable unless its sourced. also 16 months in postproduction seems to be quite a long time (if your jan 2009 date was right.) lastly, you seem to be dodging the question (asked twice now) of how you know the sites under construction? because it appears to be more like dead. As someone who has invested in movie production companies (not this one), I can tell you they come and go..-Tracer9999 (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - I would suggest that you contact archive.org if you are so interested in why they have no listed updates for crystalsky.com for 2009, all the while numerous other film news websites were quite able to find the information they were seeking at the site during that time. I will assume you got the info@crystalsky.com address from that two year old archive, but it is unknown if or when they may or may not have stopped using that address. If you are going to do a whois inquiry on a domain, then let's take a look at the whole thing:

Registrar: FastDomain Inc.

Provider Name....: BlueHost.Com 
Provider Whois...: whois.bluehost.com 
Provider Homepage: http://www.bluehost.com/ 
Domain Name: CRYSTALSKY.COM 
   Created on..............: 2005-08-24 07: 09: 30 GMT 
   Expires on..............: 2014-09-06 16: 41: 06 GMT 
   Last modified on........: 2009-12-04 09: 04: 12 GMT 
Registrant Info: (FAST-12870383) 
   Crystal Sky 
   1901 Avenue of the Stars 605 
   Los Angeles  California 90067 
   United States 
   Phone: 1.3108430223 
   Fax..: 
   Email: tomc@crystal-sky.com

Crystal Sky is not an ISP and therefore does not concern itself with hosting its own domain. The registration details are provided by FastDomain Inc. They list the address for Crystal Sky at Ste. 605, 1901 Avenue of the Stars. Obviously that is not the address of Crystal Sky's corporate office and is the address of Artists Only Management which is a sub-company of Crystal Sky, so already we are seeing a discrepancy in the information provided by FastDomain Inc. Not much point in speculating about the email contact, since that is clerical information provided, and could just as easily be a typo or whatever. The crystal-sky.com domain was setup by an entirely differnt registar from the one used by Crystal Sky, so they may or may not have anything to do with that domain. About the only point worth noting that is somehow related to this discussion, is that crystalsky.com is a valid domain until at least September, 2014.

Your speculation that Crystal Sky sold the production rights to the Tekken film is false, as you only need to watch the trailer for the film to see they are indeed the company that produced the film, which was just released a few months ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdUrryP0eWE

The long post-production for Robosapien is because the robot is basically an all CGI character, plus they did some reshoots for the film since they wrapped in NOLA as well. I have visited the Crystal Sky site a number of times, and as I have already stated above it was around a month ago when I visited again, and noticed the site was unavailable and had been replaced by a holding page indicating that the site was under reconstruction, but I'm not sure when the holding page might have gone up. It was actually only a few days ago that the holding page was taken down and is now just returning the "403 Forbidden" error when visiting the site. Does that mean the reconstruction phase will soon be over, don't know, and it's pointless to speculate. I wish you well in your future investments. Lacinius (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Ive updated my vote to delete for now. We should find out what the deal with the domain is soon as Ive advised FastDomain Inc. that the company is in violation of ICANN rules and regulations regarding maintainingg updated and verifyable contact info. If they respond, we get an email address that hopefully they actually respond too. If not the domain gets suspended then deleted. The registar has advised me they will take action to comply with ICANN regulations. Being registered till 2014 means nothing.. other then they spent $50 or so awhile back. When you run a company.. you most certainly care about how your domain looks to the public. ISP runs the servers.. the company keeps the pages updated and working. You dont just take your site down for a month.. especially when you had a useable site prior. Also, none of the current references for the article even mention the website.. so Im not sure what your talking about.. The fact remains.. so far absolutly 0 evidence of notability so, as you were the creator of this page I hope you can find some refs. I wish you well with your future reference finding. good luck.

from WP:NFF

"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." ..both of these apply at this point and come up as FAIL -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a COI tag to Lacinius's talk page due to the continued refusal to answer nagging questions about an apparent connection to the film in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks for the tag and I can appreciate your lame attempt to bully an editor with your impertinence over something you call "continued refusal" to answer "nagging questions" about an "apparent connection" to the film. My only connection to the film is by way of my browser, and I answered each question as they were asked in my very next comment that followed if you cared to look, but apparently your inflated ego prevents you from reading the words of others, so allow me to copy and paste each question and answer so that you won't have to strain yourself by scrolling up the page to go over it again since you missed all this the first time:

First question asked, "I see no indication that the "unavailable" Crystalsky.com began a redesign "about a month ago". Do you have some connection to Crystal Sky?"

To which I replied in my very next comment, "I mentioned Crystal Sky is currently unavailable and why, just as a courtesy in case someone tried to visit the site and the page would not load." This relates directly back to practically the first thing I said in this discussion, "Also added original plot synopsis back into article which came from the film production company Crystal Sky's own website. Crystalsky.com is currently unavailable because the site is undergoing a redesign, which began about a month ago." Which established in this discussion that I have visited the site, so I don't think it is too much of a stretch to think that someone might visit a site more than one time.

Next question asked, "Id also like to point out crystalsky.com was last archived by archive.org on may 1, 2008 with nothing at all for the year 2009, which is rather strange, are they still in business?"

To which I replied in my very next comment, "Crstal Sky must still be in business if another of their productions Tekken was just released in Japan at the end of last month."

Next question asked, "lastly, you seem to be dodging the question (asked twice now) of how you know the sites under construction?"

To which I replied in my very next comment, "I have visited the Crystal Sky site a number of times, and as I have already stated above it was around a month ago when I visited again, and noticed the site was unavailable and had been replaced by a holding page indicating that the site was under reconstruction, but I'm not sure when the holding page might have gone up. It was actually only a few days ago that the holding page was taken down and is now just returning the "403 Forbidden" error when visiting the site."

Quite frankly I find it rather silly to ask someone that is clearly using the Internet how they could possibly know a site is under construction. Have you never visited a site more than once over the course of several months, and have you never noticed websites going up and down and changing and being unavailable for maintenance in all your time on the Internet. Is that really such a unique experience? I also find it rather insolent of you to suggest that I have somehow refused to answer the questions that were asked of me in this discussion.

But perhaps reading comprehension is not your strong suit, and as evidence you have demonstrated that quite well in this disscussion about the original article, which began with this comment about the filmofilia.com website. This is your comment from the article history: (cur | prev) 12:45, 9 April 2010 SummerPhD (talk | contribs) (1,409 bytes) (?Plot: -copyright violation [5] and promotional language) (undo)

I then explained that they sourced their information from the crystalsky.com website by my comment, "That site "borrowed" their summary from Crystal Sky as well, and even cite Crystal Sky as the source which can be found on that page just above the poster."

You then indicated that I was still somehow wrong about that point, because it could not possibly be your inflated ego getting in the way, with this comment as typed by you above, "(Incidentally, I don't read "“Robosapien: Rebooted” is scheduled to hit theaters in 2009. [source: Crystal Sky]" as saying "We copied text verbatim from that site.")"

Okay then, please do tell how filmofilia.com was able to "devine" the exact text and provided a direct source link back to crystalsky.com, if they did not copy text verbatim from the production company website? Lacinius (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - all of this is sweet and all.. the question still remains..notability? -Tracer9999 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry to have bored you by answering some of YOUR silly questions, but if you didn't want them answered then why bother to ask? I'm working on the notability, but I'm not going to sit idle and let a subtle attempt at bullying pass without shining a light on the ignorance of that bully. Lacinius (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - good.. so we are in agreement.. at this very second this article is not notable.. as you are "working on the notability" so why again is your vote keep without evidence at this point of notability. I would think it would be delete or no vote per wikipedia policy UNTIL the notability is established.. not the other way around. like I said before. I removed the original prod. I hope you can establish notability. but Im not finding any references anywhere that does-Tracer9999 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - one more thing. the webpage has been apparently "under renovation" since Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:08:15 PM. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because news results indicate interest in this project as it was developed. It seems to me that this film is experiencing a long post-production period, and I believe animated films like this have long bouts of silence before the big media push. It happened with Legend of the Guardians, for example... there was zero coverage from when production was announced to when the film started being marketed. We are better off keeping this article and cleaning it up so when the film gets to the distribution stage, it will be ready. If I'm wrong and we never see this film, it would be better to redirect this to a section at Robosapien. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the article an overhaul to detail its production history better. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:04, 14 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) 14:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defined King James Bible[edit]

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

This WP article about a book does not obviously meet WP:NB. Written by D.A. Waite, whose article I also just nominated for deletion.

There is a review of this book on this page but it is written in a sort of blog. There are reviews of the book on sites that sell it, but I am not seeing a scholarly review anywhere. I think this might be a non-notable book written by a non-notable person. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry 14:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nominatior; Non-notable book by non-notable person. RaaGgio (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As mentioned in the D. A. Waite nomination, ~ Google search for "D.A. Waite" produced 81,000 hits. He is the president of the Dean Burgon Society who is frequently mentioned in articles about the King James Only Movement by James White 1, Bart Erhman 2 and would be, besides Peter Ruckman the most influential supporter of the King James Bible in the past 30 years, (as clearly evident in articles on Wikipedia about this topic). ~ Also in reference to the DKJV, it received 144,000 hits in a Google search on "Defined King James Bible" 124.184.99.144 (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That isn't actually relevant in this discussion, I'm afraid. It's possible that an author is notable, but his book isn't, OR vice versa. But Ghits for Waite, whatever relevance it has for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite, doesn't suggest notability for this book. StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article along with the other article mentioned are Pertinent articles on an issue that is much in debate in certain religious circles and should remain and findable references to pertinent writings on the subject. I Repeat.. DO NOT DELETE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Maranatha (talk • contribs) 12:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable: zero hits in Google News, no obviously independent sources found in Google Scholar. If an appropriate article on the KJV-only movement, this could be merged there, but there is clearly not enough independent, reliable source coverage for a separate article on this topic. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep. A quick Google search finds quite a few book reviews (both pro and anti). That seems to suggest notability. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a privately published book! StAnselm (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep -- Bible Translations are generally notable, but this is only an edition with a gloss. Private publication also weakens the case. I am in fact close to voting delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self publsihed book. Usually I give benefit of doubt in these cases but I decided to look a bit deeper for sources, there's nothing of substance. Szzuk (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A self-published book by a non-notable author is not notable. Cunard (talk) 08:55, 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. JForget 00:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Standard assumptions in astrodynamics[edit]

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

Procedural nomination — I found this while deleting expired PRODs and I don't think that it should be deleted unless after discussion. Rationale for PROD is "Per the talk page, the article title is misleading, the article is based on dubious and perhaps false and misleading assertions, the content is too narrowly defined and there are no sources." Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can just remove the prod without bringing it to AfD, right? That said, Delete or merge because without context, this isn't very useful. It can go into n-body problem. Gigs (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that, but it did seem rather unworthy of staying as an article. I decline PRODs all the time. Nyttend (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I added the prod and still see no reason to keep this article. But I'd be happy to change my mind if a better use can be found for this content.—RJH (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated on the talk page, the whole basis of the article, that "For most of the problems in astrodynamics involving two bodies m1 and m2 standard assumptions are usually the following" is (a) unsourced and (b) dubious. A number of other articles link to this, so tidy-up work will be needed if it is deleted; user Norbeck (talk · contribs) has offered on the talk age to undertake that, and I will help if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is essentially an unsourced essay.B.Wind (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gravitational_two-body_problem. Ruslik_Zero 07:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is scientifically sound as far as it goes but it does not go very far and its relation to cognate subjects is not clear. It looks like a candidate for a merge but some skill will be needed in making a seamless merger. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Aren't they the conditions in which Kepler's laws apply? I have no idea how they are normally called (if there's a name to refer to them as a whole at all), but the article could be moved or merged somewhere, rather than deleted. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 09:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The orbital motion article covers the topic in general, and has a section on assumptions.—RJH (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Wikipedia is not a teaching or how to guide; this is essentially a thumb guide to solving astrodynamical problems. FellGleaming (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone copied their lecture notes onto wp. Not a good idea. Szzuk (talk) 13:12, 16 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) 23:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Digits[edit]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gallery Game

Articles for deletion/Bump (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/On the Spot (pricing game)

Articles for deletion/Shower Game

Articles for deletion/Telephone Game

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

Article is about a pricing game that was played on The Price is Right over a period of only 28 days 37 years ago. Article is not notable, completely unsourced and contains original research. Also, article topic already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs Sottolacqua (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Very-short-lived pricing game; consensus is that no pricing game is individually notable. Absolutely no possible secondary sources. Ridiculous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge the information to the proper article and redirect. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is there to merge? Every single sentence that isn't already mentioned in the list is pure OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Take a pill their Hammer. No need to get like that. I could vote keep if you really wanted. But I am not going to. Why? There is no point to it. WP:GETOVERIT! Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing to merge. Cynof Gavuf 21:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely unreferenced, and most likely unreferencable - I can't find any coverage of it in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of existence of any reliable sources to verify the article's content, also notability issues with a single pricing game that hasn't been played in 37 years. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:04, 13 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) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed Solution[edit]

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

Non-notable band with no independent, reliable sources to show notability outside of winning a university's "Battle of the Bands" competition. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability criteria at WP:BAND: the band is unsigned, has had no chart success or airplay, no major awards. Though I found a brief mention in local paper The Daily Reflector, this alone doesn't amount to the substantial coverage in multiple, reliable sources that this article would need to show notability. Not an easy term to Google, but I am not finding anything substantial with a combination of the band's name and those of its members and/or album. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 14:16, 9 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) 23:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Darby[edit]

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

Non notable candidate redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN Wintonian (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Press officer for the BNP. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept other articles about BNP candidates that I consider to meet: WP:POLITICIAN and this has been nominated with WP:NPV in mind, this is purly about the notability criteria in WP:POLITICIAN --Wintonian (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that he does meet notability for politicians. Not as an elected member, but as a high official in that party. This one is quite high - at gauleiter level. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see how this person passes any notability criteria. Although there are exceptions such as Gus Hall, perennial losing candidates aren't generally notable. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:POLITICIAN sets out that, for unelected or standing candidates, "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Google News has him featuring in five separate stories from the last week alone, and has nearly 400 hits in its archive for the query "simon darby" + bnp. He's been covered extensively (e.g. here in the Times), or in this profile by the Guardian. He's been interviewed on the BBC and in Muslim News. He was [6] apparently Nick Griffin's annointed successor in case Griffin had been jailed back in 2006. He's also the deputy leader of a national political party. Gonzonoir (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an exception to the redirect rule for candidates. This guy is more than a candidate: he is a senior party official. It is in the latter capacity that he has received significant coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated by Gonzonoir. He is thus notable for more than his political candidacies and warrants a biography. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand per Gonzonoir's sterling work.Keresaspa (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(With regret) Keep -- I have no time for BNP, but a senior party official (for a minor party with Euro-seats) is probably notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 11 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 Coventry North West (UK Parliament constituency). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ridley (politician)[edit]

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

Non notable candidate redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN Wintonian (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~Keep~~Delete Candidate, not MP, so fails politician. However he may well be in office in a month, so let's not rush to make work for ourselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: WP:BALL and a redirect can be undone if appropriate.--Wintonian (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 14:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without deletion to Coventry North West, as WP:POLITICIAN requires for run of the mill candidates. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mkativerata. Ray^Talk 22:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to constituency per recent convention. NN until elected. Councillors are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 11 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) 01:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Ajax Sofia[edit]

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

The article claims that this is a professional football club, but then goes on to explain that the original amateur club (extant from 1929 to 1959) is now defunct and that the current name applies to a "kid club" (i.e. a youth soccer team). Neither the original amateur team nor the current youth team appear notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I strongly suspect this is a hoax. I could find no sources about the purported club in Bulgarian and I'm entirely unaware of its existence. If a kid club does exist, it would certainly be non-notable, but I'm almost entirely sure that the old club is a hoax. Todor →Bozhinov 10:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are only two results for "Ajax Sofia" football in Bulgarian: [7] and they are not about this club. Seems like a hoax. I did find some information in English searches but they're all about a virtual football team which is of course not notable. Kostja (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Kostja (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 06:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 06:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article appears to be hoax, and if it isn't the club clearly isn't notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The lack of sources, even in Bulgarian, suggests that this article is a hoax. Big Dom 21:04, 13 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator (and now even he's not sure). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Bagshawe[edit]

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

Non notable candidate redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN Wintonian (talk) 13:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:N for coverage, if not yet politician. If your split from your husband is enough for a broadsheet to pick up on it, you're notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they are closely related to another person with an article does not mean they qualify for one themselves. See "Invalid criteria" just under: WP:POLITICIAN. --Wintonian (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather see: WP:NOTINHERITED. --Wintonian (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me. My divorce didn't make it to the Torygraph, hers did. That's coverage in WP:RS, and an indication of some WP:N as a person, irrespective of whether she's a politician. Besides which, with that many titles published, I'd be hard-pressed to argue against her notability as an author (should anyone care). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I missed "With other bestselling authors" as it is only a brief mention, but the article really ought to be about the fact that she is an author not a candidate perhaps a NPV tag should be added? I'm not really sure whether to keep it or delete it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintonian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- possibly notable as an author. Still NN as a politician - unless and until elected. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable as an author. Major coverage in newspapers proves notability. Notability allows, per WP:NNC, the article to cover her political work in full, even if it's not the source of her notability. Bastin 09:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep -- Has sold millions of romance novels on both sides of the Atlantic. She's extremely well known in her genre. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 17:33, 15 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 Blob Wars. Shimeru (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blob Wars: Metal Blob Solid[edit]

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

No notable sources --Botanicvelious (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two mini-reviews by Free Software Magazine and Linux Journal: [8], [9]. The coverage seems sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG.— Rankiri (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Linux gaming - both sources linked to above provide only light coverage. Suitable for verification in a broader article. Marasmusine (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blob Wars: Blob And Conquer. Maramusine, Linux gaming is not so small as to cram everything into that article. However I think a single article on the Blob War series would be fine and that way their two notabilities can be stronger. Comrade Graham (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a better idea for now. Marasmusine (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. — Rankiri (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Good. That sounds almost like consensus! :-O Comrade Graham (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blob Wars: Blob And Conquer and Blob Wars: Metal Blob Solid Merge to Blob Wars--Shizhao (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blob Wars since merge is already completed. --Teancum (talk) 01:33, 16 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. This has to be a first. This AFD page was actually created by an editor arguing to "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Devin Jones[edit]

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

No reason is given for putting this article up for deletion. Thus, the deletion template should be removed. --RossF18 (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has good coverage in RS. Gnews shows 562 hits for "Bob Devin Jones" from 1984 till 2010.--Sodabottle (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Everything is sourced and notability is met. The template still doesn't list reasons for deletion. --RossF18 (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability well established. Evalpor (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per established notability. My question is how is it that an anonymous IP with 4 edits nominates something for deletion? Somone forget to log in? Was this someone's test edit? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 11 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) 01:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymoon period[edit]

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

Dicdef unsourced since forever, stub, no chance of expansion. No one can be arsed to fix it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One part definition, one part WP:OR. I found this article, which says on average it's two years, six months, and 25 days, but what else is there to say? The honeymoon's over. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:53, 15 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) 01:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Group Enterprise[edit]

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

This is a group with no secondary sources to establish notability. It's been up for quite a while, and I've seen an editor has removed some copyright violations. If it doesn't meet the general notability guideline, should it be considered for deletion? Minima c (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News search finds only in-passing mentions and press releases, all four of them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources found which establish anything but their existence and some job openings, nothing for notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 15 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. HEY HEY HEY. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brown's Corners, York Regional Municipality, Ontario[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006, within the whole article which is very small it states that most of it is commerical land now (and it says it takes over most of the 'former' community)and the only notable thing of this community is that Hyundai Canada is one of the businesses. Whenaxis (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Markham, Ontario#Neighbourhoods and Communities, which needs work itself. Retain category on resulting redirect page. Mindmatrix 13:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep, as recent edits have improved the article. Mind matrix 19:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. Historical communities that once had independent identities, whether they became ghost towns or lost their identities as suburbs developed, are still notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a search at the Atlas of Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Eastmain, in that link you posted it shows that there are 2 Brown's Corners in York Region in Markham near the same area how do we know which one is real? Also, the reason I nominated it is because it may be real but it fails to meet Wikipedia rules - unreferenced and very small article. (HELP EXPAND IT) Whenaxis (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WOW! Fatpig 73 and Eastmain you did a good job at improving the article Whenaxis (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is well-referenced, and therefore meets GNG. Dew Kane (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Outback the koala (talk) 07:55, 13 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. Legal threats against editors who change or delete the article,^{find me: here's a clue - I'm in Europe} a claim by the writer that it is copyright material, and after all that, not notable. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A.J Mistero[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ARTIST or WP:MUSICBIO. No good references supplied nor found. Triwbe (talk) 11:34, 9 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) 01:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Strategy[edit]

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

Non Notable management consulting firm. Codf1977 (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think that the sources show any notability of the company (one is merely an announcement, some others are interviews from someone of the company or citations of the same person). No independent writing over the company presented. Language still a bit promotional (see bolding in first sentence). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources provided do not establish notability. A director of the company is listed as a speaker at an advertising conference. There is an announcement a director is an advisor to another company. A director of the company made a statement about newspapers in Ukraine. Then we have another statement by a director about a different company. None of these references discuss Ocean Strategy at all, they are all statement made about other companies or about a director. Finally there is a single reference that discusses the company. It is an interview of a director of the company who has good things to say about his company. This is not a source that is independent of the company. I have looked for additional sources and can not find any that are independent of the company and discuss the company. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is advertising: a management consulting firm that provides tailored strategic advisory services exclusively for clients and investors in the media industry.... founded in 2000 on the basis of unique approach of combining industry ‘insiders’ with blue-chip strategy consultants.... projects often encompass high impact areas such as advertising and pricing strategies.... provides strategic consultancy services helping world's leading players to adapt to the transformational state of the sector. (Whatever that means.) When it's as relentlessly promotional as this is, notability is at best a side issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 9 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. this is all OR so we dont keep it but I'm sure a NPOV neutrally sourced article at a more carefully worded location would be in order Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disney/DreamWorks feud[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Disney/DreamWorks feud

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

Unreferenced, potentially contentious WP:OR, the content of which is best covered under their respective articles. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that this is anything but original research of a single point of view, zero references RadioFan (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very interesting, but completely OR. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree, very interesting, but the article fails WP:RL and WP:NPOV. Although those aren't criteria for deleting, the topic is clearly not notable enough for its own article. RaaGgio (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The information in the article doesn't assert how it's a feud? I find it more of a coincidence. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there is more to all this coincidence than just a bunch of creative types who have happened upon the same subject at the same time :-)--Sodabottle (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The media tend to sensationalize, marginalize, and blow things out of proportion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Their rivalry has got a lot of coverage (use rivalry instead of feud for searching) - E online, Fox Business, CNN, New York Times, Forbes, Newyorker, [10] [11] etc. Usually the articles tend to describe what goes on between disney and dreamworks as "rivalry", "war", "battle" or "competition". A good article can be written from the existing coverage - title needs to be changed from feud to rivalry, unsourced speculation removed etc but other than that, this is a valid subject that has been covered in media ever since the Antz Vs A Bugs life episode.--Sodabottle (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:OR concerns. Warrah (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure the topic is inherently going to be original research, but what's there now certainly is. Wow, is that bad stuff. Powers ^T 19:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this article's information is mentioned on The Wild, and yes I agree with the fact that it is original research. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, no sources, and plenty of speculation. In addition, there is a difference between a competitive rivalry and an actual feud between two organizations in competition with each other. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced sensationalized original research. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and sensationalism. AniMate 03:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Sodabottle above. It's a good subject and interesting. Caden ^cool 03:33, 15 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind's Eye (book)[edit]

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

Original research on unpublished book Racconish^Tk 07:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly OR. All but one of the statements in this article has been cited to information published by the author, and the remaining one, while taken from a statement on the author's mailing list (which is unfortunately not public) is also obvious from the text of the Amazon product description. If the remarks about Susan Barry being in the book count as OR, then by all means remove it. But WP:CRYSTAL only applies to unverifiable speculation, and this is a notable book published by a notable author, with multiple sources confirming its existence, subject matter and upcoming publication. So, very plainly, keep. --✶♏✶ 08:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notable unpublished is oxymoronic. Racconish^Tk 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are no secondary or tertiary sources to support this, no significant coverage whatsoever. Maybe the article could be recreated once the book has been published but at the moment it's not notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ball. this is what i found: [12] but this isnt a third party commentary on his book, but his giving a lecture on his current subject of interest. its a shame to have to delete then recreate, but hes not exactly michael jackson, who for any new release we would have commentary months in advance.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The available information makes it clear that the book is midway through the publication process, so this isn't really "crystal ball" stuff. Furthermore Sacks is an important author, and all his books become bestsellers. The article should make it clearer that the book is forthcoming, but I don't see any good reason not to have an article here. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sacks is an important author and all his books become bestsellers is "a subjective judgment on whether people should take notice in the future", not "an objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already" (Cf. ATA#CRYSTAL). Racconish^Tk 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sachs is a sufficiently famous writer on this subject that any new book from him can be safely predicted to be notable. We don;t have to be perfect to avoid CRYSTAL, just very likely. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The point is not whether it shall be notable but whether we already have sources on the content other than primary or promotional, a recurring reason why "articles about books that are not yet published are strongly discouraged" (Cf. WP:BK). Racconish^Tk 06:56, 12 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) 01:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Morgan (musician)[edit]

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

Can't find independent coverage on this trumpeter. Created by Ashleymorgan (talk · contribs) back in 2007, the article was soon prodded but the prod was removed without addressing the notability issue. Jafeluv (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Jazz notified. Jafeluv (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources that demonstrate general notability or that suggest this person meets the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. If someone can find appropriate sources, I may reconsider. PDCook (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not establish the subject's notability, and thus far I can't find another resource that does. Google hits would seem to be primary sources, at best (e.g. blog entries, subject's own website, LinkedIn etc.). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After using the Bing search engine to verify notability, I noticed that there are very few sources, let alone reliable ones. Due to WP:RL, WP:SET, and, in my opinion, WP:N, the article should be deleted. $Raa G gio (talk)$ 17:03, 9 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 speedily deleted by Floquenbeam as noted below. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MAKUDAM[edit]

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

Espouses fringe theory exactly copied from one of its references. According to the article talk page the user who created it also wrote the article it is copied from. He also created a similar article yesterday that was deleted as well. mauler90 (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listed for AfD because the user removed my PROD tag. mauler90 (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR and Nonsense. Szzuk (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research: MAKUDAM is the Crown of the Lord God of the Earth, and the only symbol which represents GOD, who created through water, can destruct through fire and maintains what He created in perfect Justice and Truth, who is having the Key of Supernova to make a Black Hole. It is a word in malayalam language which means DIADEM in english. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NONSENSE. RaaGgio (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Absolutely unencyclopedic. Possibly protect as well, seeing as this is at least the second time in three days it's been re-created. AlexHOUSE (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also-- the user appears to have created a similar article at Symbol of Christ.

Note I've speedy-deleted the article and blocked the author; if someone more familiar with AFD could do the necessaries, it would save me having to read the admin instructions again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 9 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. JForget 00:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy O'Keefe[edit]

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

Fails WP:Athlete as he was delisted without ever playing an Australian Football League game. Hasn't competed in a professional football league. Jevansen (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason.:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as clear failures of the community-set standard of WP:ATH. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Fails WP:ATH/WP:N. $Raa G gio (talk)$ 22:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would this apply only to delisted players, or would players in the current squad be notable as likely to play a game, WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding? There are plenty of article here on players with zero games - e.g. Sam Blease. St Anselm 08:35, 12 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. JForget 00:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Spears videography[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is article is nonessential. The information here is supposed to be on other articles pertaining to Britney Spears, not a whole article to itself. The "Music videos" and "Video/Live albums" should be listed in her Discography. The "MTV Video Music Awards and nominations" is already listed in her Awards page, and only one of the ten "Miscellaneous videos" has a source, and the one with a source should be added to the album that it's listed as being related to. Gabe19 (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 14:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Britney Spears discography — Gwalla | Talk 16:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have been planning to expand it for quite a while and to make it an actual FA such as Madonna videography. But at the moment i'm busy writing other articles, so if I can create it again I wouldn't mind if it was merged for a few weeks.Xwomanizerx (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well that hasn't happened, and I don't think Britney has enough videos to create a Videography like Madonna's.Gabe19 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Yes, Britney's videos are less than Madonna's, but that doesn't mean that the BS article can be written like the Madonna's article is! A videography is not merely about the amount of videos, you can check any other videography, and you'll see that a lot of them doesn't have hundreds and hundreds of videos, like Pink Floyd videography, which, BTW, also list video releases, and have less information than Britney' videography, or check Fat Joe videography, an article practically empty. You can alse see Beyoncé Knowles videography. That article follows Spears' videography format, with the exception of the filmography, which on BS article is only mentioned and redirected to the filmography article. (Note: I am not arguing "Why this article exist and it is not being deleted", I'm just showing how the argument might be erroneous, or might be ignoring a lot of facts. Fortunato luigi (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just added some references to the "Miscellaneous videos", so you can't argue that topic. Fortunato luigi (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just because those videos now have references doesn't mean the entire article should be kept.Gabe19 (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Of course no!!! Dah! I just did that and wrote that in order to counteract one of your "should be deleted" points. Fortunato luigi (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Discography is an article that does not cover the Videography of the artists, it just cover the "disc", meaning albums or singles, but doesn't cover music videos or songs, so the can't be merged. Besides, one of the users here just said that he/she will improve the whole article, and while that happens, some references were added. The "Videography" of an artist is really important, is a relevant article for the artist, like with all the other artist out there, BS can have a Videography article (I am not saying "why does he has a videography article?" just saying that since it is important, relevant artist should have articles like this one). Furthermore, Spears' music videos have been a really important fact for her career, so it is important to mention then and list them. Fortunato luigi (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All Artists' Discographies list Music Videos, in addition to the 'disc', (charted singles, albums' success, and the like.) And the user said he's been planning on it for some time, but that time hasn't come. Also, live albums and awards aren't supposed to be listed in this article.Gabe19 (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: ^^ Both, Madonna videography and Michael Jackson videography are articles that list live albums or home releases, and both of them are FL-Class articles, that show no problems, and with all reason, having the "video releases" list, included. On the other hand, planing means that it'll happen eventually, so why would we delete the article, if he/she is planning to bring it back on the future and will re-write it following the scheme of the FL-Class article "Madonna videography". The reason why the awards are listed here, is because it is an article about the music videos, and those are exclusively the music video awards and nominations. Fortunato luigi (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its an acceptable list article, showing information about the videos, and linking to the proper pages about the songs for more information. Each video on the list got massive television play, and many were talked about. Some of these videos even won awards. Dream Focus 05:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE. Needs to be separate from discography because it is so long. Besides that, it does meet notability guidelines. Dew Kane (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leave Britney Spears videography alone! TomCat4680 (talk) 04:59, 15 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) 01:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of Us (film)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:Notability (films) (specifically but not limited to WP:NFF). Article was PRODed previously (as One of us (film)) but then recreated. Evil saltine (talk) 02:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Recreation of deleted material, also non-notable. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the film is in pre-production and fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. If/when the film begins filming and itself gets press coverage, Wikipedia might consider recreation of the article, but as yet this article is just too soon. Userfy to author upon request. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: blah blah blah. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. fetchcomms☛ 03:45, 13 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. A9 Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance Nancy ^talk 14:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My World (Tim Kay song)[edit]

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

Unsourced, only a single which does not mention hitting any charts, artist does not have own article either. fetchcomms☛ 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Singles from acts that don't have their own page are automatically non-notable, and have their own CSD category - Wp:CSD#A9 - and I have tagged the page as such. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:17, 9 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. A9 Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance Nancy ^talk 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Known but Not Wanted[edit]

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

Unsourced, artist does not have an article at all. fetchcomms☛ 02:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 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. WP:CSD A7, no indication of significance. Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Singles Yearbook[edit]

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

IP continually removes CSD tags, not notable website for single members of a religious sect. Talk page stated they "will be using the site to deploy and administer various tests and resources to our target audience." Wikipedia is not a website host. GregJackP (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It IS notable because it is part of the Religious sect and is led by its leaders! We will not use wikipedia to deploy anything, but to share our research and document it to the public in a collaborative manner (together with the public). Can you please stop deleting this page!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlibazisi (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please review what Wikipedia is not. (GregJackP (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, non-notable website. I can't find any significant information about it whatsoever. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FYI, the creator of the article just tagged my user page for CSD-A7 (website). Not very christian. (GregJackP (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 9 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) 13:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Mandu[edit]

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

I redirected the article to Howling Laud Hope as the section existing on the new page is almost the same as the content on this the original page (word for word). The redirect has been reverted and thus contested so opening up a discussion seems to be the right thing to do rather than enter into an edit war. Wintonian (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are more than their text content - they also include categorization into projects and such categories as Category:Animals in politics. Is the nominator suggesting that Howling Laud Hope should be categorized as an animal? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion Article is referenced by the BBC and two broadsheet newspapers. Why should it be deleted? If the nominator objects to duplication elsewhere, then the appropriate response is to fix that. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andy Dingley is spot on; it's obviously notable by Wikipedia standards, and could be expanded well beyond what's there. Rebecca (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editing can fix issues within and between articles; deletion is for when there shouldn't be an article at all, and in the rather strange (some might say raving loony, even) circumstances of this party, we're talking about the former titular head of the party (even if it is a cat). The article is sufficiently referenced; the LOL(cat?) factor together with the prominence of the party prompted several independent reliable sources to report significantly on the issue. Therefore I believe it meets notability standards. Orderinchaos 04:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with redirect Per Wintonian. - PlainSight (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Parliamentary candidate, notable enough for his own article, even if it's only a stub so far. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a candidate, not quite sure how a cat can be put up for election, but then this is the Loony party and I guess I've lost this debate anyway.--Wintonian (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stupid but notable. Szzuk (talk) 07:24, 16 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) 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Ermolov[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH. Can find no reliable sources or evidence that "He has won many world tournaments" as the article claims. Papaursa (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one unsourced and nebulous assertion of notability, which tournaments and exactly how 'many' ? Goggle only turns up social media and networking sites so nothing to go on from there. --Nate ^t/_c 08:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have so far been unable to find references to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 05:20, 12 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) 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kapatiran Arnis[edit]

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

As discussed at the Martial Arts project's article review, this organization seems to fail WP:GNG and lacks third party sources. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, just another MA school. --Nate ^t/_c 08:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This organisation was apparently covered in Martial Arts Illustrated (October 2004), but apart from that, I have not yet found references to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 05:18, 12 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) 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Popstation (Online Singing competition)[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, per WP:WEB - no references to independent, reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. No sources, reads like a brochure. Doesn't seem notable at all. --Pstanton (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete non-notable online competition. Pure WP:PUFFERY and brochure/WP:PROMOTE-like (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:39, 10 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) 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Hudson[edit]

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

Same arguments for deletion as mentioned in related AFD. Essentially a duplication of character exposition and plot detail already included in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film) article. No additional published character analysis available and article appears to be mostly original research. Mostly unsourced content as well. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Jane Hudson
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' One of the 2 principal characters in a very famous film and its follow-ups. There's fairly extensive discussion of the movie available, and it cannot fail to mention the two contending characters--especially because they were interpreted by very famous actresses in signature roles, Better Davis and this role by Joan Crawford The material in the article duplicates too much of the main article, and appropriate sourced criticism needs to be added. Not my subject, and some of our best editors in this sort of sourcing are no longer active. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a character specific section made in the main article. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep of iconic film character who has established notability through being examined in depth in many books, such as Horror Film: Creating and Marketing Fear by Steffen Hantke, Body and soul: the cinematic vision of Robert Aldrich by Tony Williams, Magill's survey of cinema by Frank Northen Magill and Stephen L. Hanson, Vanishing women: magic, film, and feminism by Karen Redrobe Beckman, Bette Davis: the performances that made her great by Peter McNally, Cinefantastique, Volume 3 by Frederick S Clarke, Joan Crawford: Hollywood Martyr by David Bret. Joan Crawford: the essential biography by Lawrence J. Quirk and William Schoell, Figuring age: women, bodies, generations by Kathleen M. Woodward, Twisted Head: An Italian American Memoir by Carl Capotorto, The cinema of isolation: a history of physical disability in the movies by Martin F. Norden... and many others found through searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep arguments still do not address the fact that the entire contents of both articles are merely a duplication of the plot section of the film article. There is no new information being introduced in either of these articles that isn't already covered in the film's article. There is absolutely no reason for such a duplication. Any character related information can easily be included in a smaller section within the film article. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contents are hardly "duplication" of articles that deal with subject in a lesser manner... but rather expansions that increase a reader's understanding of the subjects. When any related article expands in-depth on a topic, it can become an encyclopdic article in its own right. For instance, the film article at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962 film) attempts to cover the film's Plot, Production notes, Cast, Critical reception, Awards and nominations, Box office & In popular culture in its 2127 B length. The article about the 1960 noverl at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? is a 2838 B unsourced plot summary... likely to itself be sent to AFD for that lack. Far shorter, the article at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1991 TV movie) is only a 417 B stub. By comparison, the article at Blanche Hudson is a healthy 1927 B long and deals with the character in depth, expanding with content not in the film or book articles. So no, I do not see these more inciteful articles as duplicative of those others... bur rather as acceptable WP:SPINOUTS of notable characters that increase a reader's understanding of the subject. Are you now suggesting that the content from the larger SPINOUTS be merged into one of the film articles... or into the unsourced book article? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm adding my comments here from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Jane Hudson discussion because they also apply to the argument of deleting this article:
      I am not stating that this is duplication of a smaller article. Baby Jane Hudson is clearly the lesser article of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film)#Plot and contains not one single new piece of information, character analysis or exposition that is not already contained in the Plot section of the main article. There is absolutely 100% not one single iota of new information presented in the Baby Jane Hudson article that the reader can glean about the character. Not one single thing. It's merely a regurgitation of information already included in another article. There is no discussion about mental illness, what drives Jane to torture Blanche, character analysis of others presented, etc.

Same exact statements apply to this article. For those arguing keeping it, this is not about whether or not the character is notable. The article as it stands contains not one single additional piece of information not already stated in the plot section of the film's article. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A keep or delte of an individual character article is most definitely about the character being notable. I have seen no refutation of the fact that Blanche Hudson is an assuredly notable and quite iconic character in the original novel and in two films.... only concerns over content. What would be of benefit to the project is for the article to expanded and better sourced through regular editing. The character's notability merits an individual article, and does not merit being relegated to a subsection in an article about one film. Your own comment immediately above about what the spinoff lacks underscores that it is time to further WP:IMPROVE this character article through regular editing... but not through deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no refutation of the fact that Blanche Hudson is an assuredly notable and quite iconic character in the original novel and in two films.... only concerns over content- MQS. That is it in a nutshell. Szzuk (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film). There is no need for a standalone article on this subject, since the character has no presence beyond the classic movie. Warrah (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page can't evolve if its deleted. It certainly will evolve because the character is much discussed in any number of media outlets. Szzuk (talk) 07:34, 16 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) 13:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Jane Hudson[edit]

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

Essentially a duplication of character exposition and plot detail already included in What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film) article. No additional published character analysis available and article appears to be mostly original research. Mostly unsourced content as well. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Sottolacqua (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' One of the 2 principal characters in a very famous film and its follow-ups. There's fairly extensive discussion of the movie available, and it cannot fail to mention the two contending characters--especially because they were interpreted by very famous actresses in signature roles, Joan Crawford and, this role, by Better Davis. The material in the article duplicates too much of the main article, and appropriate sourced criticism needs to be added. Not my subject, and some of our best editors in this sort of sourcing are no longer active. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom may as well withdraw. A remarkable character acted remarkably. Chilling, and certainly there has been much discussion and debate about this character. Szzuk (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the acting is irrelevant and does not address the issues raised by the nom. Remove unsourced, OR material and merge into a character list or the film's main article. --✶♏✶ 08:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The acting is relevant, if it were poor then there would be no film page nevermind a character page. There is actually very little OR in this article, there is nothing in the article that is contentious and immediately needs citations. The article needs clean up, in particular for style. Szzuk (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep of iconic film character who has well established notability through being examined in depth in many books, such as Horror Film: Creating and Marketing Fear by Steffen Hantke, Magill's survey of cinema by Frank Northen Magill and Stephen L. Hanson, Bette Davis: the performances that made her great by Peter McNally, Joan Crawford: Hollywood Martyr by David Bret. Joan Crawford: the essential biography by Lawrence J. Quirk and William Schoell, The cinema of isolation: a history of physical disability in the movies by Martin F. Norden... and many others found through searches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep arguments still do not address the fact that the entire contents of both articles are merely a duplication of the plot section of the film article. There is no new information being introduced in either of these articles that isn't already covered in the film's article. There is absolutely no reason for such a duplication. Any character related information can easily be included in a smaller section within the film article. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contents are hardly "duplication" of smaller articles of lessor or related content... but rather expansions that increase a reader's understanding of the subjects. When any related article expands in-depth on a topic, it can become an encyclopdic article in its own right. The film article at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962 film) attempts to cover the film's Plot, Production notes, Cast, Critical reception, Awards and nominations, Box office & In popular culture... and all this at 2127 B long. Far shorter, the article at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1991 TV movie) is a 417 B stub. By comparison, the article at Baby Jane Hudson is a healthy 4118 B long and deals with the character in depth, expanding with content not in the shorter articles. So no, I do not see these more inciteful articles as duplicative of those with less content... but see them rather as acceptable WP:SPINOUTS of notable characters that increase a reader's understanding of the subject. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not stating that this is duplication of a smaller article. Baby Jane Hudson is clearly the lesser article of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film)#Plot and contains not one single new piece of information, character analysis or exposition that is not already contained in the Plot section of the main article. There is absolutely 100% not one single iota of new information presented in the Baby Jane Hudson article that the reader can glean about the character. Not one single thing. It's merely a regurgitation of information already included in another article. There is no discussion about mental illness, what drives Jane to torture Blanche, character analysis of others presented, etc. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have repeatedly claimed that the information is a duplicate of information in the film article. You have above written "a duplication of character exposition and plot detail " and "the entire contents of both articles are merely a duplication of the plot section of the film article". Were it only a duplication, the Baby Jane Hudson article would be smaller than the plot section at What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film)#Plot... a section at attempts to cover the entire film and not just one character. I have seen no refutation of the fact that Baby Jane Hudson is an assuredly notable and quite iconic character in the original novel and in two films.... only concerns over content. What would be of benefit to the project is for the article to expanded and better sourced through regular editing. The character's notability merits an individual article, and does not merit being relegated to a subsection in an article about one film. Your own comment immediately above about what the spinoff lacks underscores that it is time to further WP:IMPROVE this character article through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
      - You're flogging a dead horse. Szzuk (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (film). There is no need for a standalone article on this subject, since the character has no presence beyond the classic movie. Warrah (talk) 12:26, 10 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Berman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO I would prod but it has been on wiki since 2005 Wintonian (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources that establish notability. Silver seren^C 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leader of a major city council, with local news coverage when he's one of the first people to enter a civil partnership? Pretty notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as effectively the mayor of a reasonably sized city. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a boundaryline case. Cardiff is the capital of Wales; mayors of national capitals are usually notable . Certainly the >1k Gnews results would suggest so. Ray^Talk 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample news coverage of this guy. Dream Focus 07:14, 14 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) 23:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Taylor-Dawson[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:POLITICIAN claim to fame is that they polled a single vote in an election. I was going to WP:PROD this but it's been here since 2005 so I thought it should be discussed. Wintonian (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:POLITICAN so what? They garnered cited WP:RS coverage on the single vote issue, so that meets WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Interesting, but obviously not notable for anything other than this bit of trivia.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per biography of a living person known for one vote. Ray^Talk 22:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found one recent article - [13] - mentioning her, but it's primarily about her more notable brother. Warofdreams talk 15:39, 15 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) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natare[edit]

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

Unremarkable company. Article makes no claim to notability. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Contested Prod. RadioFan (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its a small time company of no importance. Szzuk (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is meant to disambiguate the term "natare" from the Natare Corporation. mklewis07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know what that means. Please explain. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Verb natāre 1. present active infinitive of natō. natare mklewis07 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether the name of the company is natare or natare corporation. The company isn't worthy of a page on wikipedia. That won't affect the wikitionary entry. Szzuk (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The company is currently building the longest elevated pool in the world at Marina Bay Sands in Singapore, which already has an wikipedia entry. It is a noteworthy project and I believe can be verified at marinabaysands.com mklewis07 (talk) 16:29, 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) 00:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In it's current form it does not establish notability from 3rd party sources. It should be recreated when sources can be found. Outback the koala (talk) 05:53, 9 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) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hilton[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:BIO.Internet blogger with a couple of minor TV appearances providing news commentary and a small run in with an MP. Wintonian (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with the notable boxer at this location (Alex Hilton (boxer)) 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blogging just isn't enough. 3rd party sourcing isn't substantial enough to justify an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Disambiguation page He fails WP:POLITICIAN and news coverage is too trivial to pass WP:BIO. The disambiguation page should include a list of his failed candidacy attempts with links to the appropriate UK Parliamentary constituencies, as well as a link to the boxer. Ray^Talk 22:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if you do that, he becomes a non-article, so the boxer should be primary. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete present article. Clearly NN as a politician. By all means move the boxer inot the space vacated. We will not need a dab page, since there will be no other article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold until May 7th. He is a candidate in the UK General Election 2010, for Chelsea and Fulham (UK Parliament constituency). Although it is not likely he will be elected, there is always a possibility. If he fails election, then obviously he will be NN. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold as per Suni, and improve as there is a degree of notability asserted. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Would suggest a redirect to the constituency article, as per recent precedents, but this needs to be deleted so that the article on the boxer can be moved here. Definitely do not hold off until the election; there's been widespread consensus not to leave this sort of cruft around. In the unlikely event he is elected and becomes notable, we can always recreate the article. Warofdreams talk 15:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not cruft this article has existed for over two years and the subject has notability apart from the recent nomination, all that does is add to his general coverage, as far as I know we don't delete an article so that we cn move some semi notable boxer into the dead mans shoes. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant how long the article has existed; this is the first time that it has been discussed here, although I note that a ((notability)) tag has been placed on the page on several occasions. In my view, this article should be deleted. The notability or otherwise of the boxer with the same name is only relevant in deciding whether to move that or not - if you think that they are not notable, you should nominate that article for deletion, too. Warofdreams talk 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for commenting. I was replying to your comment which is unsupported by any policy .. quote Warofdreams this needs to be deleted so that the article on the boxer can be moved here .. as I know this is unsupported by any policy or guideline

To be very clear, this needs to be deleted rather than redirected for that reason. Either way, this article should go, as its subject is not notable. Warofdreams talk 21:58, 15 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 Cambridge (UK Parliament constituency). Shimeru (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zeichner[edit]

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

Non notable candidate as per WP:POLITICIAN, redirect to Cambridge (UK Parliament constituency) as per WP:POLITICIAN. Wintonian (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wereon (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Mr Zeichner at this stage (unless he wins the upcoming General Election) he isn't actually all that notable. From what I can gather, being a candidate for a national office doesn't qualify one for notability unless one already holds (or wins) that office. Severe Punishment (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, possibly userify if anyone wants it. This looks like a prime example of someone who might become a notable back bencher with that past fondness for nazi salute stunts, but he's not there yet. Following the Labour landslide next month he might be in. Or else, maybe not. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (declaring interest). Guidelines for politicians say that notability can allow articles on "People who have held .... first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature." As chairman of the Labour Party for a first level sub-national area, namely the East of England, I suggest Zeichner is notable. MikeHobday (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the guideline, that only applies to democratically elected posts, not party apparatchiks. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Mike, I think we've discussed this before in a similar AfD, and the same conclusion was reached. Wereon (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we discussed it on the Daniel Zeichner talk page, and didn't reach a conclusion. Let's hope we do now. But I see that WP:Politician has changed since the discussion, and the new rules are more restrictive. MikeHobday (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, so we did. Mea culpa. Seems an awfully long time ago now... Wereon (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The sub-national level thing was meant for elected posts like governors of American states, Canadian provinces, etc, not local party bosses. Ray^Talk 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to constituency per recent convention. NN until elected. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:18, 11 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) 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Krav Maga Federation India[edit]

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

This article does not seem to pass WP:GNG. I can find no independent sources which give it significant coverage. This article has been flagged for notability since 2007 and a lack of sources since 2009. The president of the federation is described as the "sole and foremost Instructor", which seems to indicate it's not a large, widespread martial arts organization. Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see notability and can find no mentions of this organization in third party sources. 72.20.219.166 (talk) 20:53, 4 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) 00:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nothing in gnews [14]. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have so far been unable to find references to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 05:01, 12 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 if independent sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northland Cable Television[edit]

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

Non-notable small cable company; zero references except to it's own websites. Orange Mike | Talk 17:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But there's sources that take user content as-is... which may be biased. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that a multistate cable company is notable enough for inclusion. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 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) 00:06, 9 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 Miroslav Vitouš. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Syncopations[edit]

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

Non-notable album; delete or merge to Vitous article Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Allmusic.com it is an "AMC Album Pick" if this one isn't notable then none of his albums are. Why delete information that could be of use to some poeple? Dan Hewins (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:09, 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) 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Polarpanda (talk) 00:51, 9 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. JForget 00:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Rosenberger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated last year, but kept based on the fact that google news showed up a few results in German. I'm not convinced this is a notable person, and the article has remained unreferenced and unwikified for a year. I'm not sure a person mentioned in a few online news stories is necessarily fodder for a Wikipedia article. Are these significant news articles? Just about any musician who has performed regularly gets some mention in the press somewhere. My German is awful, so I can't tell. It seems her sole claim to fame is that she is a specialist in an instrument just about no one else on earth plays. Does being a specialist in one's field mean anything when one's field is this small and esoteric? Is any old hit from a google news search an instant invitation to an encyclopedia article? Her works as self-published, and not notable by WP standards. The vast majority of the input in the last AFD (including not one but two keep votes) came from the article's author (which could be Rosenberger herself for all I know). R. fiend (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Being a noted specialist in the contemporary performance of any significant historical instrument is notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 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) 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable authority in her field. I've added reliable and independent sources in German language. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:51, 9 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) 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Bakery and Ingredients Supply[edit]

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

Contested prod. A notability assertion is present, but it is referenced by a primary source. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the machine translation of the page that says there is no article about this company on the Chinese Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnotable company. Clubmarx (talk)

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, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable and lacks good sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:06, 15 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) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education for Development[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. one of the two sources is from the organisation's own website. gnews reveals at best 4 hits (with 2 passing mentions like a party for an employee) [15]. simply having some gnews coverage does not equate to notability. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 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) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sure it does great work, but we have to verify that it is notable, not its good works. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 10 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 if sources are found. Shimeru (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Air[edit]

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

Unnotable airline, no references and only its homepage appears on Google Whenaxis (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to indicate notability, and there's no third-party coverage to be found. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:17, 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) 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely real, boarders on non-notable, but lacks 3rd party coverage. default we should keep and find sources. It's an airline. Outback the koala (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((afdrescue))

Keep Google news search at the top of the AFD finds over a hundred results. Some of them are about this company. [16] Some are about other things. There are enough about the company to count as notable coverage. Dream Focus 14:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Those Google News Search that you gave us in the link was about a company in Brunswick, Maine not the one that we are talking about in Ontario. Whenaxis (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite the claim that it is an airline, it appears to be an air taxi company, providing ad-hoc charters. It does not appear to operate a regular scheduled service. Mjroots (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given its age of nearly 30 years, it is likely there are some sources. Being an airline, also, it is likely there are sources. It is not likely anyone would have heard of it to write about it if not for its sources. Dew Kane (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Claiming there are sources is not sufficient. It is for those seeking to retain the article to WP:PROVEIT. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 15 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) 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The In Crowd[edit]

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

Non notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this band is signed to a reputable label for the genre of music and their releases / touring / news are verifiable by numerous third party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.68 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "headed towards grabbing mainstream attention", come back when you have it. lacks coverage needed for wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:03, 8 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) 00:03, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Abela[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability guideline for biographies of living people. Yesterday I had looked at WP:Reliable Sources and found this section. The reference leads to a website in which I don't think is reliable. Minima c (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author has 33 books listed at WorldCat.org and she's published by Random House Australia. She meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I've added the WorldCat reference to the article. It needs expansion, not deletion.--Plad2 (talk) 21:56, 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) 00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deborah Abela is published by Oxford University Press, WorldCat.org by Random House Australia and Simon & Schuster. It took seconds to find this, this this this and this, all of which confirm a sufficient body of work and sufficient prominence to meet WP:GNG. The list of awards [17] also support the subject's notability and would only take a short while to verify (here's one of them. I've got the page on my watch list and will come back to it when I've finished what I'm doing right now. Deletion is really not justifiable on the grounds of lack of notability.--Plad2 (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I have further expanded the article and found plenty of reliable references in a relatively short period of time - more than sufficient to justify the notability of this article. Dan arndt (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Current version of the article demonstrates notability. Subject clearly satisfies notability requirements. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is well established, even several awards. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:05, 9 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) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Bizzigotti[edit]

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

No useful references in the current article. Former band appears of shaky notability at best. No gnews hits. Under 200 unique ghits, and all appear to be either trivial, or not independent (own sites or vendors or sonsor sites), or unreliable (fora, blogs). Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. on the edge of an A7 Speedy delete tag. DES ^(talk) 10:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom unless independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage are found and cited that clearly establish notability. DES ^(talk) 10:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 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) 00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. not notable. no sources.. Outback the koala (talk) 05:46, 9 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) 23:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaopeng Rick Niu[edit]

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

Totally non-notable corporate executive; highly non-encyclopedic touch of vanity in the "Family name" section (possible autobio?) Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete cited references are to "main pages" or to pages where the subject is quoted, not the substantial coverage of the subject required to establish notability. ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 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) 00:02, 9 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) 01:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra Barker[edit]

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

Non-notable model. References do not provide sufficient evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO Tassedethe (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete - This is a tough one. It took a good amount of work to find those references. Tassedethe is correct in that none of the references provide sufficient evidence of notability. You can find a few of her photos and she is hot, but I have yet to find good evidence of notability. As it stands, I am leaning towards delete, but I will do some more looking before the AfD ends. Dethlock99 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article on non-notable model. Dethlock99 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Four "sources" have been added to the article and I think it makes the subject Less notable than before! Dethlock99 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 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) 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, sources are very weak. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:08, 15 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) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evestus[edit]

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

Badly written and distinctly promotional article on what appears to be a pretty obscure Estonian musician, started by WP:SPA Aliado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Tagged A7 but notability asserted. I suppose that if the puff was hacked out we might have a worthwhile but much shorter article,. You decide. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:06, 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) 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while coverage is claimed insufficiant details are given for verification. only other possible claim to notablility is unsourced. without sources this should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:26, 11 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) 23:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick.Cms.Lite[edit]

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

Obscure freeware of dubious notability; "article" is more a feature list, as is often the case for these. Orange Mike | Talk 22:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. It looks to be quite a popular program with lots of downloads. But I can't find any reviews to shed light on its notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a decent package, have to give it a try, but I can't find any reliable sources for it. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:02, 6 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, 9 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) 05:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Benetton[edit]

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

Non notable businessmen. DimaG (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Benetton family. Obviously notable family name, connected to a well known consumer brand. Individual is notable chiefly for his relationship to the family business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 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) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' senior vice president of JP Morgan Chase is notable, and probably as important as his n role in the "family business," DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No please lets not keep this. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. He's not turning up on JP Morgan's website. Not only does this lack significant coverage in reliable sources, which is the test that a biography ought to pass. It appears to lack any verification whatsoever. The closest I can some is that someone with his name appears to have worked for Deutsche Bank.[18] For all we know this article could be a hoax. Keeping totally unverified biographical material is a total policy fail. Please, to the commenters above, have whatever subjective views of notability that you like - I'm not at all uncomfortable with the view that senior business figures are notable - but can we at least have due regard to WP:V? --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources I could find were mirrors. Wont oppose recreation at later date if refs appear. the rest per the prev. user. Outback the koala (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless some verification can be found, I'm with Mkativerata. In some quick searching, I find that neither the Benetton article nor the Forbes listing from which it's sourced even mention "Stephen" as one of Giuliana's children; I find no evidence that a Benetton ever married a Rockefeller; and for that matter I find no independent evidence of the existence of any "William Whitney Rockefeller". At the moment, I lean toward guessing that this is a long-lived hoax, although I certainly stand ready to be disabused of this hunch. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:14, 9 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 Choir of Chichester Cathedral#Close Company. Shimeru (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close Company[edit]

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

This barbershop group appears to have no notability, except the remote one that the members are drawn from the Choir of Chichester Cathedral almost-instinct 07:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 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) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect back to Choir of Chichester Cathedral#Close Company, which it appears to have been spun out from. Neither the main article nor this one are of sufficient length to justify a split, and I am unable to find significant coverage for Close Company which would found notability for a stand-alone article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good plan to me :-) almost-instinct 12:22, 9 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 Houston Independent School District schools#Primary schools. Shimeru (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Briargrove Elementary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Briargrove Elementary School

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

Nominated for deletion as elementary schools are not generally considered notable by Wikipedia consensus, and the page for Briargrove does not indicate it is a Blue Ribbon school Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Houston Independent School District schools#Primary schools per the usual practice. Deor (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with Deor, it should be redirect only. It is already listed on List of Houston Independent School District schools#Primary schools.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Houston Independent School District schools#Primary schools. There is some core sourced content that should be merged and, at a minimum, a couple of the images shouldn't be lost. TerriersFan (talk) 17:15, 10 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.