The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Urban (musician)[edit]

Tim Urban (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it fails WP:GNG. Finalists on British talent shows are not inherently notable (we even had debates about runners-up JLS and Olly Murs in The X Factor) so why is it any different for American Idol.

The following articles should also be redirected or deleted if notability cannot be established:

• Didi Benami
• Crystal Bowersox
• Aaron Kelly (singer)
• Siobhan Magnus
• Paige Miles
• Katie Stevens
• Lacey Brown

(03md 23:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this listing of a mass AfD. The notability of each of these individuals needs to be assessed separately as they may be notable for things other than their appearance on American Idol. This is not an appropriate use of group nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes criteria #9 of WP:MUSIC. The article simply needs a few reliable sources. Aspects (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose listing of a mass AfD. You cannot simply list them, you actually need to go through and put AfD notices on each of the pages. Within the past ten days, Siobhan Magnus, Katie Stevens and Lacey Brown each went through an AfD and they were all closed as Keep. Also Paige Miles easily has enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. The other three need more sources like Tim Urban. Aspects (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tim Urban article - He's getting press coverage in reliable sources like this and this. This is not the place to discuss the other articles. If you have a problem with them, nominate them separately. PDCook (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I was just trying to draw attention to other similar articles. My point is that an article JLS, The X Factor runners-up in 2008, was nominated for deletion. In American Idol it seems that contestants only have to reach the final 12 to become notable. Olly Murs, Jamie Archer, Rikki Loney etc. have all got RS but the articles would automatically be redirected if created. 03md 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what, this is tit-for-tat? My show's contestants were nominated for deletion so now I'll nominate the contestants on your show? Or is it simply another case of Americentrism that an American show's contestants don't get cited for deletion but an English show's contestants do? Whatever case, you don't have a leg to stand on re: WP:MUSIC. I vote Keep. SchutteGod (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Benami and Bowersox; keep rest. Reviewing the articles, those are the only two that clearly fail WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Pretty much all AI finalists get heavy press coverage, even (ugh) Tim Urban. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per precedent. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. I thought we went through this last season with a mass deletion attempt. I will never figure out why there seem to be users just waiting for these articles to be created so they can put them up for deletion. Like the show or not, these people are notable due to heavy coverage of themselves and of the show they are on. Hey if it's 9 months from now and these folks have done nothing outside of the show and the tour, then let's revisit this. But right now its very pre-mature. I myself am tired of going through this literally every season. Outside of Alexis Grace, the articles are always kept due to the show being as notable as it is and the contestants on it being notable. As for the mentioning of the X-Factor contestants, we can't really compare series. It's a case by case basis. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all — per User:Woohookitty. If they don't seem to be highly in the media a few months after the season is over, then this should be taken into consideration again. But not right now. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diaries 1969–1979: The Python Years - Michael Palin[edit]

Diaries 1969–1979: The Python Years - Michael Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Original research and information that should be in the infobox. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The book has received notice such as this NYT review. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. I've added an infobox, removed a lot of OR, wikilinked it and tagged it for clean up. I also found two more reviews and an extract that was published in the daily telegraph, so it is notable. As Colonel Warden says please see BEFORE, Afd is not clean up. Edgepedia (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will need moving, the title's wrong, but that's best done when the Afd is closed. Edgepedia (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep book is notable just a badly formated article. Just needs a clean for which it already tagged. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 28 March 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) 04:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fisk[edit]

Scott Fisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. Text also appears to be copyvio of samford faculty profile. On his own website several national awards are listed however google only knows about them in relation to this individual. Claims for work appearing on major tv networks do not seem to be referenced anywhere. noq (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability of any sort apparent at present. Assistant Professors usually have not yet achieved notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. The whole thing is basically just a CV recitation. Only the last 2 sentences claim some minimal notability, but they provide no sources whatsoever. Probably could just have been prodded (I see speedy was justifiably declined). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, assistant prof at tiny Stamford. Abductive (reasoning) 09:22, 29 March 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) 04:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bar Exam 3[edit]

The Bar Exam 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Mixtapes are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No indication that this mixtape has received enough coverage to show notability, mixtapes are very rarely notable. -- Atama頭 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Royce's mixtapes M.I.C. (Make It Count) and Build and Destroy should be deleted as well. --Bejnar (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give Us Clean Hands[edit]

Give Us Clean Hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

DAB page for two non-notable songs. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Correct me by reference to policy if I'm wrong, but as I understand WP:DISAMBIG there's no requirement for entries on a disambiguation page to be notable or even have articles, providing they are legitimate disambiguations of the word, phrase or name to be disambiguated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ah hah! Found the relevant policies:

• MOS:DAB#Individual_entries - "Every entry must have a link, and the link should be the first word or phrase in each entry."
• MOS:DABMENTION - "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink." - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Dust. However, that broad reading of DABMENTION would imply that every single possible word or combination thereof should warrant a redirect. But DABMENTION speaks of "topic"--and I wouldn't call this a topic. These are song titles, not topics, and I maintain they are non-notable songs. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - disambiguates between two songs which may be looked for -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - songs are indeed topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above, Boleyn2 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milliamp (company)[edit]

Milliamp (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article was likely created for publicity as a result of this paid editing request on elance dot com. The company itself fails WP:N and WP:ORG with only some passing mentions in the news with no significant analysis. Wikipedia is not a repository for spam and it is not to be used for promotion. ThemFromSpace 21:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage, some of the footnotes are a little disingenuous. --Bejnar (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The company is notable in media in the area of iPod/iPhone repair interest and has significant impact on YouTube around the same topic. The editing request appears without finality and meaning, it was not awarded to anyone. It could have been created by anybody without a serious intent of a paid editing request. Dominick.j.bolden (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC) — Dominick.j.bolden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Weak delete The company does exist (and is a member of the San Antonio BBB [1]) but notability is questionable. Lots of online mentions in blogs and review sites, but little in the way of reliable sources. The references look more impressive than they are. Of the two NYT articles listed, one has a passing quote from the company's president; the other doesn't mention the company at all that I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the NY Times article you said it doesn't mention the company is the one from 2007. The company is mentioned there as ipodjuice, In the History section of the article it is pointed out that the company (although named Milliamp from the very beginning) was known almost exclusively as ipodjuice between 2005-2009. This should be taken into consideration when assessing the notability, they should be taken into consideration sources for both Milliamp and ipodjuice brands. Milliamp is known to the public only for about a year. Dominick.j.bolden (talk) 18:27, 30 March 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bolan's Rock Shrine[edit]

Bolan's Rock Shrine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I'm not really sure if this article is hoax or valid. It looks fishy to me. bender235 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Not a hoax, but almost completely devoid of decent sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Keep if cleaned up and sourced with the sources Shoessss dug up. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I can see this as a standalone article, versus a Merge/Redirect to Marc Bolan. It has generated a press on its own and has been officially recognized as the Marc Bolan Rock Shrine as shown here [2] from 3rd party – independent – verifiable and reliable sources. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still inclined to Merge. It's interesting and does have a claim to notability of sorts, but there doesn't seem to be much notability independent of Marc Bolan himself, nor does there seem to be enough material to really be worth a stand-alone article. However, it's certainly not a candidate for deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --bender235 (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No more than a weak keep - merge would be a possibility, but if so, it should be merged not only to Marc Bolan, but also (though only as a brief allusion) to some local article on the area where it is, perhpas Barnes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 25 March 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Representatives of the Queen for Commonwealth Member States[edit]

List of Representatives of the Queen for Commonwealth Member States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article serves no purpose, as the individual lists aren't 'Representatives of the Queen for Commonwealth Member States', nor is there even a title of 'Queen of the Commonwealth Member States'. When asked what the purpose was, I got no reply.

The list seems to be a combination of Governors-General (i.e. some of the representatives of the Queen in Commonwealth realms, but not all of them, because Lieutenant Governors are also direct representatives of the monarch), Presidents of republics (who do not represent the Queen in any way at all), and High Commissioners (who represent the British government, not the Queen).

We already have an article called List of Commonwealth Heads of Government, and an article called List of heads of missions from the United Kingdom (albeit out of date). These, I believe, are the articles that ought to exist. This list is mumbo-jumbo, and ought to be deleted. Bastin 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The Queen's ruling agent in Commonwealth countries is a definable category of persons that warrants a list. List of Commonwealth Heads of Government doesn't cut it at all, because the Queen's representative is not a head of government (they're the representative of the Head of State). List of heads of missions from the United Kingdom doesn't either because that refers to the UK's diplomatic representatives as opposed to the Queen's ruling agents. However, in my view many countries should be deleted from this list (such as Malaysia, Pakistan, India) because the Queen is not their Head of State and is in no way the representative of anything in respect of that country. But there are many non-republics who have the Queen as their Head of State, such as Australia and New Zealand. It is useful to have a list of those countries to find out who the governing agents of the Queen are in those countries. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While the linkage may be relevant for countries such as Australia etc, the President is not the queen's representative in India, Pakistan, etc. The article needs some referencing to actually say what it does and all these "member of the commonwealth, so the head of state is the queen's representative" items should be deleted; otherwise the article as a whole should go. —SpacemanSpiff 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mkativerata's reasoning, but do the fixes suggested by SpacemanSpiff. Also consider carefully whether the list of names is practical to maintain. It might be necessary to just list the positions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the list stands at present, it is misleading and verging on OR. The list includes - as representatives of the British monarch - the Heads of State of republics such as India, South Africa etc. whose HoS have no ties whatsoever to the British monarchy, regardless of their former status as British colonies. It even includes the HoS of countries such as Mozambique and Rwanda who were never ever colonies under the British crown! The Commonwealth is a free association of nations with no special role for Britain and the Queen's (symbolic) role as Head of the Commonwealth is completely separate from the governance arrangements of its member countries. I dare someone to telll Jacob Zuma that he is the Queen's representative in South Africa!!! There may be a place for a list of Vice-regal representatives of the current British monarch but this list would need almost a complete rewrite to allow this to happen. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal. How about, in addition to deleting the likes of India, a move to List of current Governors-General of the Commonwealth realms? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As it stands, this article is clearly inappropriate for the reasons given. However, a move to List of current Governors-General of the Commonwealth realms would be two restrictive. In Australia the Governors of the various states and the Administrator of the Northern Territory are direct representatives of the Queen, so they should be included. I suggest it be moved to List of Representatives of the Queen in Commonwealth Member States and all other positions and people, Presidents, High Commissioners and so on, be removed. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the two proposed lists are mutually exclusive; we can have both. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Apart from the laughable South African entry, there is some debate as to whether the Queen can properly be called the "Head of State" in certain Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zeland and Canada - Head of state#Delegation states that since 2005, all all letters of credence solely address the Governor-General of those countries. See also Government of Australia#Head of state. StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen of Canada is Elizabeth II. I cannot believe anyone could try to challenge that fact. Outback the koala (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen is legally the head of state - her image appears on every Australian coin, we have "Crown Prosecutors" and cases like "R v defendant", and section 1 of the Australian Constitution is rather clear: "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" ... note, no reference to the Governor-General, he doesn't get a look-in until section 61: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative." I only know the Australian situation but I assume that of the other two countries is similar (and I know they both have the Queen on their coins). Orderinchaos 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it is debatable, and, indeed, debated. The first article says, This wording implies that the government of Canada, as least during the premiership of Paul Martin, regarded the Governor General as the Canadian Head of State. The second says, In 2009 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described the Governor-General as the Australian head of state. Now, they may both be wrong, but it does mean that the entire column "Head of State" in this article is not neutral wording. StAnselm (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I do not see any alternative way of phrasing it. Can you? Outback the koala (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Bduke's proposition to rename "for" to "in", and get rid of the obvious non-members of this group. Orderinchaos 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's an incomplete list that needs to be expanded. No reason to delete, but would support a move to a better title. It also needs a clear inclusion criteria, which it is lacking now. The rest per Mkativerata. Outback the koala (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Discussion of "Head of State" is a red herring. This article is about representatives of the Queen. Commonwealth countries that are republics do not have representatives of the Queen. The Australian Governor-General is the Queen's representative, whether she is Head of State or not. The column of Heads of State should go along with people who do not represent the Queen. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think we should just delete the column. Next issue: what is the justification for calling Mwai Kibaki, for example, the Queen's representative in Kenya? My main concern with this article is that when we get rid of all the unreferenced material, there'll be very little left. StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a useful list, but I would agree that it would be a good idea to to rename "for" to "in", and then continue further discussion about the particulars on the article's talk page, and if necessary pursue some form of dispute resolution to come to consensus building. -- Cirt (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now that it's been so radically altered, it's fine. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator changes to keep. As stated, User:StAnselm and I have radically changed the article per the suggestions above. Now that there is a clear definition of what the roles it lists are, it is useful to the project. Bastin 19:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Oliver[edit]

Rob Oliver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

non-notable Alan - talk 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The question is, if every person listed here is considered notable. I found only one article online - Local Man Is Director on Simpsons Movie published by WILX-TV. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Simpsons#A_bunch_of_AFDs. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A guy who directed four episodes of a show (yes, even when the show is the Simpsons), and animated or served as crew on a couple others, has a long way to go before he becomes Wikipedia-style notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 29 March 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) 04:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian A. Alexander[edit]

Brian A. Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Script coordinator for various TV shows. Script coordinator is a pretty minor job, which doesn't involve actual screenwriting. Third party coverage to establish notability seems to be difficult to locate, unsurprisingly. Gigs (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a strange article, in that the subject is identified as a director and yet, when IMBD credits are checked, the result is 1 film directed (in 1997) and much episodic television as "script coordinator" done since that time. There are only a few people listed as cast and crew for the single directorial effort, which does indeed leave one wondering about notability. An admittedly perfunctory Google search turned up virtually nothing. Evalpor (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely non-notable. Most of his positions have been as "script coordinator" or "assistant to the line producer". He has written one episode of one show. And he claims credit for directing a movie, but like Evalpor, I wonder about the notability of any film which has a cast of two, a crew of two, and a single cameraman. A student production, maybe? --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 30 March 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 Newcomb ball. Anyone wishing to merge the content will find it underneath the redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner Ball[edit]

Prisoner Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

There are not enough references for this article to meet notability guidelines. One of the four citations states that the game is a variation of Newcomb ball. The Newcomb ball article already has a section on variations of that game. I propose that this article (Prisoner Ball]] be deleted and a summary of its contents be merged into the Newcomb ball article. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect – To Newcomb ball would be a very viable and much more pitiable alternative to delete. This is a legitimate game, as shown by the following news articles [3]. However, agree with nominator that the piece does not have enough coverage to be a standalone article. On the other hand, if we go with a straight delete, an individual that may search under the specific term “Prisoner Ball” will most likely come up with a “No Article” found message. Where if we go with a merge/redirect and merge this information into Newcomb ball we have satisfied this users visit to Wikipedia. Thanks . ShoesssS ^Talk 21:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Agree with the redirect in addition to the merge. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Done. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect As author of this article, I also agree with the merge and redirect. If I knew the Newcomb ball article existed, I would have redirected Prisoner Ball years ago... anyway, thanks for bringing this here. Much appreciated. — RyanCross (talk) 05:45, 29 March 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. I appreciate that some of the arguments are not based in policy, but ultimately I cannot close this debate any other way. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Myself Tonight[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)).

Not Myself Tonight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Typical premature article, containing such earth-shattering information as "A music video will be shot soon. No other details have been revealed." No charts, no cover versions, no awards. Fails WP:NSONGS. Efforts to redirect to album article, as recommended by WP:NSONGS, have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to badger each keep, but I will point out that at this point, none of the keep indications (afireinside27, HC 5555, Alexshunn, 190.29.227.98) have even commented on the relevant guideline, WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment, and then I will bite my tongue for 24 hours until this AFD goes away one way or the other. People ask what harm is done by premature articles: how about that no one can figure out who wrote it?

• Maybe Esther Dean? [4][5][6][7][8]
• Maybe no one knows? [9]
• Maybe Palow da Don helped [10][11][12][13][14][15]
• Hell, as long as we are just guessing, maybe Christina Aguilera wrote it: [16].

Articles about songs that haven't got enough information to provide even the basics (like writer and genre) invite chaos, because there are too many editors that feel compelled to insert their best guess into any and all empty infobox fields.—Kww(talk) 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts are not a valid reason to delete an article. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. WP:NSONGS says the article must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I found sources from:

• BBC - [17]
• The Independent - [18]
• Billboard - [19]
• NME - [20]
• Digital Spy - [21]
• Daily Mail - [22]

There :) KingOfTheMedia (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)— KingOfTheMedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• "Significant"?—Kww(talk) 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. A whole article from the British Broadcasting Corporation (one of the biggest news networks in the world) is quite enough, as is the whole article from the UK broadsheet The Independent and so on... KingOfTheMedia (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Song will be premiering at the end of this week and already has a release date. Will obviously chart in the coming weeks. No point in deleting. afireinside27 (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Same thoughts than afireinside27.--HC 5555 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a real song, and will be premiering soon. With more suprises to come, the single release date could happen soon, I think we should keep it, unless someething occurs to question is authenticity. (Alexshunn (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). It will be notable soon enough, but right now, it isn't. –Chase (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Was anounced in her official site. The song needs an article, and will be released the friday, according to RCA employer in Australia. --190.29.227.98 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bionic. There is not way for us to predict the future performance of the song. And per WP:NSONG, even charted songs don't necessarily deserve a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you kidding me? It's by Christina Aguilera, not some obscure artist. It's the lead single off of her highly-anticipated new album. Of course it will deserve a separate article. afireinside27 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.86.130 (talk) [reply]

• "Will" is the operative verb here. I don't think anyone is arguing that it won't probably meet the criteria for having an article at some point in the future. The question to be resolved at this AFD is whether it meets those criteria now. Right now, it does not, and serves only as an accumulation point for rumors, gossip, and the occasional copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 21:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While you're still arguing here, the lyrics of the song was posted in her official site... Of course this need a separate article. Will -> No. Is -> Yes. --190.29.227.98 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As others have said, it is clearly a real song that will premiere within the next few days. I see no point in deleting the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Rush (talk • contribs)

• Redirect to Bionic. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The single will released in late march. Confirmed. So, why we have to "redirect" somthing already announced? And, we aren't talking about and indie group. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: So much fancruft, a song doesn't have it's own article until AFTER it's released or AFTER it's charted. Not before. The article will be re-created after. Jayy008 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be re-created after. -> This is necessary? I mean, it represents a complete waste of time. It was announced, and in less than a week, will be on, at least, ten charts. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ridiculous to redirect it. It premiers this week for crying out load! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.121.148 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Wikipedia guidelines not personal opinion, the deletion can be reverted when it charts by the click of a button, until then it doesn't meet noteablility guidelines. Jayy008 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of sources that confirm the song as an official single, not to mention Christina's official website confirms the song as a new single. Plenty of song articles around here have been created before the song was released, the only thing that made them proper candidates for deletion is if there were a lack of reliable sources confirming them as an official single. Besides, this song is being released four days from now. Poor timing to nominate this article for deletion, there's too many sources supporting its right to exist. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I read WP:NSONGS, and this article meets all of the requirements. A future single can only have a separate article if there are enough reliable sources covering it. Practically all the major music/entertainment websites have confirmed "Not Myself Tonight" as an official single, and most importantly, so has Christina's label. Maybe this article can be restored from deletion with the click of a button, but there must be a valid reason for the article to be deleted in the first place. So far, I see no reason to delete this article when it meets all the guidelines that require it to be here. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to point out that provision for future singles in WP:NSONGS. There are provisions for future albums, but none for future singles.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Lots of coverage now, and no need to delete it when it will even become greater during next week. Candyo32 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even If there wasn't enough info at the moment, why remove it? It's the lead single of one of today's major artists and carries enough notability for anticipation, and in a week's time you will have plenty of stuff to put in it. Alone the fact that someone deemed this article for deletion while there are thousands on here that have no place in wiki, should be kind of a point ;) Anyway it seems every single of today's mainstream artist seem to have pages, why do you want to delete this one.Dollvalley (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fancruft, a vote is not a consensus! Jayy008 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article definitely needs some sources, but that cover art has been revealed and a sneak peek has been released. Not to mention it is being released to radio in three days. No need to delete if sources are added. --Shadow (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend this article be deleted without discussion, nobody is saying any valid reasons, an article can't exist simply because it exists and their is sources, it HAS to chart or be RELEASED to purchase. Why does nobody understand? Jayy008 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand about IT'S GOING TO PREMIERE THIS WEEK? We have cover art, release dates, and even the cover art. It's premiering in two days, goes to radio next week, and the digital download comes out in two weeks. There is no reason to delete it. --Shadow (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My take on this the article currently does not meet the guidelines established. While KingOfTheMedia has provided sources from major sites none of these are in the actual article. Right now it is mostly un-sourced except for the cover art, Polow da Don's involvement, the fact it is an official single and the release date for Australia. In the first source provided doesn't mention Ester Dean plus the rest of the article is un-sourced. In order for this article to be notable the links mentioned above should be in the article plus all the information in the article should be properly sourced.

• Right now Delete because the article is under sourced. If the article has more references and is sourced properly then Keep.♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 20:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. While the song is being released in a couple of days, and there are sources, it's going to be about another week if and when it charts.--User:Gabe19 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If only because this makes the Lady Gaga fans mad. Kidding! :D No, seriously, what's all the fuss? The song is only going to get more and more coverage as the weeks go by. It's already been written up by several major sources, including Entertainment Weekly, and more reviews will come. If you delete the page now, it will only have to get re-written when the video is made and the single hits the charts - and we all know it will. Even if the song bombs, it's worth writing about. This is, as someone else said, Christina Aguilera, not some obscure artist. -- HollywoodDoll (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2010 (PST)
• Keep actually for a change i agree with the creation of the article. It is actually reasonable well sourced and is less than two weeks away from release but has already recieved some critical reception and my guess is in the coming days it will recieve even more independent coverage. In terms of content compare it to a released song like I Got You (Leona Lewis song) and the only thing its really missing is some charts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 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) 10:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Ninna Namada[edit]

Narayana Ninna Namada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No evidence that this rises to notability for an independent article per WP:NSONGS. Hekerui (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shreevatsa (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although this is probably hard to argue based on sources (I was actually expecting the article to be PRODded, not taken to AfD), this is a notable song. It is (I think) part of the Carnatic music canon of popular compositions. Most of these compositions, if one went by number of performances, or number of times it has been included on "albums", would outrank many songs deemed notable enough for inclusion. Unfortunately, these are rarely reported by name, and the many books that mention them are rarely in English (or make it to the internet, in any case), so this leads to a systemic bias in Wikipedia coverage. Still, there are 9,630 hits on Google — notable enough, I think. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked at Google News, which goes through newspaper archives, using "Narayana Ninna Namada" and this got nothing. If it's only "Narayana Ninna" then there are hits but only trivial mentions. At Google books both version give basically as much. There may or may not be a systemic bias. The matter at hand can apparently answered only by checking non-Internet-available sources. Until reliable sources discussing this composition are revealed I'm not convinced of notability. Edit: I saw some content added but that's from the sources I mentioned. I just checked The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians but sadly it had no article on the composition itself and no mention of it in the Indian music section, but that's probably expected since it's too general for specific compositions in Carnatic music. Hekerui (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there is enough assertion of notability now, even from what is available online — several of the most prominent Carnatic music singers have performed this song; the charting etc. criteria of WP:NSONGS do not make sense for a 16th-century song. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's really difficult to find sources for Carnatic music compositions online. We ought to compare Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach with Category:Compositions by Purandara Dasa to see how well we cover these topics, as Purandara Dasa is iconic to the development of Carnatic Music. When The Hindu refers to the song without even an introduction or tagging the artist, it shows the importance of the composition in that genre. This book has the lyrics and meaning and if someone has access to it, they can add the source; this is another source where the song is included. —SpacemanSpiff 21:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment but you didn't add a substantive reason for notability to the article. Hekerui (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are the two books I linked above, they're just not available online. —SpacemanSpiff 22:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but haven't read them so you can't evaluate them. Hekerui (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't share your views on this. The content in the article is verifiable, there's one book where the google view shows that the transliteration and meaning are provided, there's another bit where google says it's available, The Hindu doesn't even think that the composition needs an introduction, and are we really looking to see if a composition from the sixteenth century passes our notability criteria of charting etc? —SpacemanSpiff 00:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A very popular and ancient song in Carnatic classical music. A good start of an article, although the article needs desperate help, and not a delete. prashanthns (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A song that is 450 years old and we know who the composer is? That's notable in itself in western music! It certainly looks and smells "notable" but because I don't have the wherewithal to ascertain it, I won't vote keep, but it is my opinion. Maybe with a little research and editing by those that can will save the article? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel that this song is notable enough in its own right but I'm also wondering whether it has ties to - or is indeed the same song as - "Narayan" by The Prodigy and Kula Shaker. The song as performed by Prodigy and Kula Shaker was written by Kula Shaker frontman Crispian Mills but incorporates elements of traditional Indian devotional music, with the song's refrain being "Om Namah Narayana." Maybe there's no connection beyond the use of Narayana - a name for Vishnu - in the title but then again, maybe the mantra-like chant in the song is derived from "Narayana Ninna Namada". I think we need to ascertain whether its the same song or based on the same song and if so, expand the article accordingly. You can hear Kula Shaker's rendition here in case anyone can identify a similarity. If there is a connection though, that would certainly strengthen the article's notability since "Narayan" was featured on The Prodigy's The Fat of the Land album which reached #1 in both the UK Album Charts and the Billboard 200 in 1997. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need4 Video Converter[edit]

Need4 Video Converter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is a purely promotional article, created by a single-purpose account (see User contributions: MMetalSnake—apart from writing the Need4 Video Converter article, his/her only other contributions are promoting Need4 Video Converter in other articles). Its only purpose is advertising a non-notable product. It is not written in a neutral way ("one of the most complete converters") and does not suggest why the product is notable, because all three references are bogus:

1. The Tucows and Softpedia sources are not product reviews written by the Tucows and Softpedia staff. Because they both contain the same text (examples: "Convert video and unprotected DVDs using ready-made presets for any mobile device", "Enjoy the highest conversion speed on the market!"), possibly written by the software author, in a very promotional way. Therefore, the Tucows and Softpedia links do not count as reliable sources.
2. The Softpick link is totally useless, because Softpicks is an anonymous hoax website. They don't have any "About Us" section anywhere, they don't say who they are, the only way of contacting them is via the web form (a very common feature of hoax and spammers' websites), the Disclaimer, Terms of Use and other sections are "Under construction". This is not a new tactic in Wikipedia—spammers are constantly trying to put links to hoax websites like this in the hopes of fooling Wikipedians into thinking these references are somehow relevant. But the Softpick link clearly does not count as a reliable source for Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has many Google references, quite popular on download archives [23][24]. The article has been re-written in a neutral way. Promoting links to the article has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.79.97.9 (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: 95.79.97.9 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic (a single-purpose account, possibly a sock puppet or a proxy).
  • Comment: The number of Google hits is irrelevant. Popularity in download archives in irrelevant, too (and Brothersoft cannot be taken seriously either). The only thing that makes a product notable is "significant coverage in reliable sources". Now, basically all Google results for "Need4 Video Converter" are trivial sources like download sites or crack/keygen downloads. This only proves that the product is available for download at various places. But it is not significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails to meet the notability guideline. If some download site reviews the product, it is in fact not a review at all, but just a verbatim copy of the marketing description that can be found elsewhere, too ("Enjoy the highest conversion speed on the market!"). The product is simply non-notable, and the article was created by a spammer.—J. M. (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find press releases and download sites, but what I cannot find is any coverage in WP:RSreliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Although the article is written in an acceptable manner, the main subject is not even near notability; there are tons of similar software in existence. This falls as promotional material. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 01:35, 27 March 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) 04:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nocturne (2010 film)[edit]

Nocturne (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD. Independent film of questionable notability. Article is based on primary sources - no IMDB page, no significant coverage in independent third-party publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - could not find independent reliable sources to establish notability. The lack of an IMDB page just makes that more evident.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as youtube movie that has yet to find notability.[25] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holden McNeil[edit]

Holden McNeil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This View Askewniverse character fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not-notable: Main character in one film, made one cameo in the sequel. Not known outside of fans of the askveiwniverse. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• <del> as non-notable, inappropriate depth of coverage; nothing but plot regurgitation, which is better suited to the film articles.
  • Covered at: kevin-smith:wikia:Holden_McNeil Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! I did not know about this fictional character before. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! I did not know anything about this character before, and having read the article, i still know nothing of its cultural relevance, its treatment by reliable sources in depth, scholarly views, etc... Why don't i know these things? Because they don't exist.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 27 March 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) 04:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas James Pritt[edit]

Dallas James Pritt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Recreation of deleted article from 2007 and contested PROD. Regional actor of questionable notability. What few sources are provided only mention the subject in passing. No significant coverage in independent reliable or verifiable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My original prod reasoning was "Just 26 non-wiki ghits for this performer, zero gnews hits. Not finding professional reviews of his performances or other items to suggest notability", and even with the additional sources, my opinion is unchanged. The "Datony" award (which appears to be a local award) was for being part of an ensemble, and wasn't even the top award for an ensemble. The "Best Supporting Actor" award is unreferenced, and not enough info is given to tell who gave out this award. None of the references in the article show notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bada Ganpati[edit]

Bada Ganpati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

• Delete : No citations & references, Orphan, The existence of Place is unverified.  Abu Torsam  18:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It can be verified by a Google search, see WP:BEFORE. That it is an orphan is not reason to delete. There are plenty of images that might be added. Whether it meets WP:GNG is one of taste or opinion. Rescue? Bearian (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article simply lists "Bada Ganapati" temples in three cities but doesn't claim notability for any one( seeSiddhivinayak temple (Mumbai) for a famous temple dedicated to Ganesh). Going by the links provided by Bearian, the temple in Indore seems to be a the more popular among the three. Willing to reconsider if author establishes notability. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deepak. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi Wa Boku No Toriko Nare[edit]

Kimi Wa Boku No Toriko Nare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Google RS search turns up nothing put illegal scanlations and forum and blog comments. The Japanese artice does not have any reliable sources listed either. —Farix (t | c) 18:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 18:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After I went through the CSE results, I wound up deleting all but 8 hits, which survive only because I'm not comfortable banning their domains. None of them are interesting or significant in any way. --Gwern (contribs) 19:10 23 March 2010 (GMT)
• Kimi Wa Boku No Toriko Nare a 4-ongoing vols series by Setsuri TSUZUKI published by Akita Shoten. No licensor in UK/US, France, Germany, Italy & Spain. Licensed by Tong Li Publishing in Taiwan. Based on all those available facts i'm leaning Delete for now as there are not enough evidences to pass any inclusion guidelines. --KrebMarkt 10:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not finding any significant, and precious little insignificant, evidence of notability. Pending reviews in Japanese or Chinese, delete as failing WP:BK. No prejudice against recreation should it break out as a hit or be adapted as an anime. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Published in a notable magazine, Princess (magazine), long enough to be proven notable. You know by now that no matter how notable something is, you aren't likely to find any reviews for this type of thing, since why would any manga related magazine review something carried by their competition? Dream Focus 23:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been repeated time and time again, being serialized or published in a magazine does not make a manga notable by any means. The notability of the magazine is not inherited by the manga. You know full well that notability is based on coverage by reliable third-party sources and not on first-party publications. —Farix (t | c) 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is decided on consensus, which is the opinions of whoever is around at the time to comment, and the opinions of whoever closes the AFD. Sometimes articles like this are saved, sometimes not. And I believe I have repeated this time and again also. There no sense in having this same discussion every single time. Dream Focus 00:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we keep having the same conversation is because you keep starting the same conversation with frivolous reasonings, so don't put the blame on others. Notability is decided by WP:N as you know fully, which requires reliable third party sources, You know this, stop pretending you don't or that it's something you can ignore or twist into the same nonsense as usual. If you don't want to keep having the same conversation, I strongly suggest you try and understand why you keep getting into it. As you've been told dozens of times, being in a notable magazine does not make an individual series notable. The issue here is not what you think it is. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NThis page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The guidelines are just a suggestion, as I have pointed out many times before. They were passed by a small number of people, without the consensus or even knowledge of the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia editors. Topics with absolutely no proof of notability, do survive quite often. Policies must be followed, not guidelines. Dream Focus 06:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly what I'm talking about, you are completely dismissing guidelines for being "suggestions" and not being consensus when thats the opposite of what they are. For starters the guideline box at the top of the articles states changes should reflect consensus, which means that yes, guidelines are still a established consensus. And per WP:G - Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Where a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, the policy normally takes precedence. The problem is that you read "common sense" as "ignore because its only a guideline". At the end of the day one of the main differences between policy and guidelines outside of legal areas is that policy outranks guidelines if the two conflict. In this case it's extremely unlikely that the guideline will be overruled by the policy because the Notability guideline actually supports WP:V rather then conflict with it - as notability in third party sources provide verifiable details. If you don't want your votes ignored or dissected, don't insist on ignoring or twisting things to suit your grasping at straws. You are quoting what the page says but not actually reading the meaning."Occasional exceptions", not ignoring the guideline in every afd under the guise of common sense when you just happen to dislike guidelines in general. When you start using your own common sense, you can start lecturing others over it. Guidelines should be followed unless you have a good case not to, this isn't one of them. You've no cause to complain about any of this as long as you keep up this nonsense. The work doesn't pass WP:N, instead of keeping up the war against a consensual guideline, provide actual proof this article passes the guideline, or why the guideline should be overruled (with well thought out reasoning, not false claims about the validity of the guideline). If you want to keep articles, giving flimsy claims and ignoring guidelines isn't going to help you. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite the claim above, being an individual series published as an individual part of a magazine does not make that series notable, and notability requires discussion in reliable third party sources (WP:N). And currently fails WP:V entirely.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:20, 26 March 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 Moved to User Space The article has been moved to Greekboy user space until it meets WP:NALBUMS Mike Cline (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Album (Anna Vissi)[edit]

Untitled Album (Anna Vissi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Textbook WP:HAMMER. Sources barely confirm any of the info, article is mostly coatrack about what Anna Vissi had been doing leading up to this album with very little info actually about the album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This album is unlikely to take off as originally planned after the death of Greg Ladanyi, and we already know that Vissi has other immediate plans in 2010. I will see that the main editors of this page have it saved as a draft for future reference for the time being. Imperatore (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although I do not agree with the exact reasons stated for deletion, this album has hit a stand still it seems. I am willing to move it into a sub page on my userpage instead of outright deletion if the final decision is to delete. This way the edit history will be preserved for whenever this album actually takes off in the future. Greekboy (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ironically, MAD TV reports today (see here) that Vissi will be traveling to New York during Easter, before her appearances in Thessaloniki, to put the finishing touches on her English album. So it looks like the album is actually moving ahead. I am tempted to say Keep....but again, I wouldn't mind just moving it to my page until it actually finalizes. Greekboy (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a user subpage. The article's content is substantial and the article should be able to be worked upon as the release date approaches. It's coming, but I don't think it's ready for a page in the mainspace yet. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.Y.E. - The New Awareness[edit]

O.Y.E. - The New Awareness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This sounds like some movement of ill definition that the article's creator just came up with. Not much is really there for this one that explains why this movement is even notable. A few links to unrelated articles exist on the page. I can't even figure out what this is about! Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. This reads like someones acid trip. Its got no relavance to anything, that I can figure out. The sooner its gone the better. Siind (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, thank you for responding to my new article submission. As this is my first article composed, I have been a fan of Wiki for quite a long time. As stated in the article this isn't a movement despite what Dennis as submitted, however the article is definitely in its first stages obviously as I have just only begun. the article will be about higher level thinking, individual awareness, the psychology of the mind and how it takes in and interprets data from its surrounding. All links added to the page directly relate to Awareness and Cognitive thinking and if given the opportunity to finish, I can assure you that the article will continue to fit within the realm of the Wikipedia policy. To Dennis's observation that perhaps the title is undefined and unclear however it was flagged for deletion in a little under two minutes of posting! LOL Its a work in progress, is there another way in which I should be doing this. I am completely open to suggestions and thank all who read this for your input including Dennis. Truthlivesinus (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original research. Truthlivesinus, the issue here is not whether the article is true, either for you or for others (it may well be a description of higher awareness which attracts people) , but whether it is VERIFIABLE. ideally, each expressed fact or opinion in an article can be sourced to a notable, reliable third party. nothing here is sourced to someone else. if alan watts, or krishnamurti, or sai baba, used "oye the new awareness" in a speech or interview, or if any of these ideas can be sourced to specific, notable people of "higher awareness", then those statements can be included in articles. if this whole essay can be sourced to someone other than yourself, say a well known book which tries to make these arguments, then the article can stand. If you are a fan of WP, you would know this. please dont take it personally when this is deleted (which it will be, and I know enough about this subject to know this essay is NOT from a reliable source). sincerely, Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY. Truthlivesinus, to answer your question, you can create user subpages (e.g., User:Truthlivesinus/The New Awareness) and work on articles without placing them in the main namespace. But keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If the subject isn't WP:N-notable, or the final draft of the subpage will not be able to pass WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOT, you'll probably be wasting your time. — Rankiri (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. It's possible that sources exist, and I'm happy to switch to Keep if they are found, but I can't find evidence of them. Without an indication that the subject is sourceable, the article can't remain. If time for research would be helpful, there's no objection from me to userfication. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:28, 24 March 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) 04:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Sinatra: 10 CD Box Set[edit]

Frank Sinatra: 10 CD Box Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is not an album but a commercial non-notable compilation for the German market. Also the source links provided are wrong and the article consists of a mere track list. De728631 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - but the nominator and the one other voter above have not given entirely legitimate reasons. The statment that it "is not an album" as stated by De728631 is incorrect; it is an album in the form of a compilation. And the fact that the article is currently just a track listing is usually a reason for expansion, not deletion. Also, the WP:NOTDIR rule cited by the other voter is not relevant for a listing of tracks within an album article. However, what is relevant here is that the compilation appears to be a quickie budget release by an obscure label that has not been noticed by the general media and apparently not even by Sinatra's many communities of serious fans, as can be seen in the almost total lack of coverage in reliable sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my understanding, an "album" has to involve cooperation with the artist and consists mainly of newly released tracks. There are of course posthumous releases and such but I would never regard a compilation of any sorts as an official album, unless it is some Best Of disc released during the lifetime of the artist. De728631 (talk) 21:07, 28 March 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) 10:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brown (baseball)[edit]

Robert Brown (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Is this notable. he played all of two games. Has no avg, no homeruns, or RBI's. But most importantly no info. There is no info on he besides his two games. Yes this was 130 years ago but nothing. Even is he battled left or right is unknown. Not to mention some of Teams that played for the National Association don't have articles. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Going out on a limb here and saying delete even though he is a major leaguer. If this is the only information anyone can ever find on this guy, then why bother? Given the typical error rate for baseball stats from 130 years ago, this guy may not have existed at all! Wknight94 ^talk 18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Wknight94 ^talk 18:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major League players have always been notable by virtue of their being major leaguers. Played professionally at the highest level. And the nominator is incorrect, all the National Association teams have articles. Spanneraol (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'll point to the Union of Morrisania team the 1867 champs. Team championship pic here.[26] Now to question that Major League players have been notable. I'll quote WP:Notability "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It also says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". The is no converge what so ever on this person. This will alway's be an article that says he played two games and nothing more.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The National Association of Professional Base Ball Players existed only from 1871-1875 and Morrisania was not a part of that league. They were part of the earlier amateur league. All members of the Professional league have pages.Spanneraol (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This player played for the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this player did.. but you asserted that all of those teams did not have wikipedia pages, but they all do.Spanneraol (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't has the NA refers to BOTH leagues as the left over from the first NA made the New NA. Not to mention the fact the MLB does considers them as the same competitive level and does not consider either to be the top.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One league was professional, the previous league was not.. no source considers the first league one the same level.. for instance Baseball Reference lists the statistics of the second league and treats it as a professional major league.. while the amateur league that preceded it is not treated as such. Very little is written about the individual teams in the prior league but the NAPBBP and its teams are written about in numerous sources. Spanneraol (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BIO and long-standing precedent. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether it's fair or not, WP:ATHLETE has always conferred inherent notability on persons who have competed at the "fully professional level" of a sport, and the definition is then elaborated upon based upon which sport it is. In the case of baseball, the guidelines are WP:BASE/N, which exclude minor league players from inherent notability, but confer it upon people who played in leagues that historically have been considered to be "major". Although Robert Brown played only two games in the National Association, the NA was the major league in 1874. The National League didn't get its start until 1876, and the American League not until 1901. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember it says 'Additional criteria' that he goes under, but he doesn't meet the 'basic criteria'. I would think, under Wikipedia:Notability (people), that basic criteria holds more ground than addition criteria.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people don't like the concept, but "inherent notability" is presumed for members of certain groups of people, regardless of whether one could find significant coverage from multiple sources. For example, under WP:POLITICIAN, any person who has ever served in a national or state legislature for any length of time is generally considered notable, even if no other fact can be confirmed about that person beyond the fact of service in a legislature. It's doubtful that we would be able to find a great deal of information about someone who had served as a legislator in Nicaragua in 1873, and yet that person would be excused from the usual requirements of demonstrating notability if a reliable source confirmed the service. Robert Brown is one of the many people who get mentioned in The Baseball Encyclopedia and other player registers, regardless of having been a major leaguer only briefly. The same type of inherent notability is generally afforded upon dinky little villages around the world, small-town radio stations, colleges that you and I have never heard of, senior high schools, and many other locations that cannot demonstrate worldwide fame. Overall, I think that inherent notability is a good thing, because it bypasses the debates between ordinary people over whether someone is else is a "important enough" to merit their own article on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - bias against his playing 130 years ago is ridiculous presentism. matt91486 (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with a bias. It's the fact this article has nothing, but he played two games. Not even if he batted right or left. He clearly does not have the basic criteria under WP:Notability (people) --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:ATH and WP:WPBB/N. The argument that we don't know if he batted left or right doesn't stand-up. Numerous players from the 19th century have "Unknown" as their batting and/or throwing label. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as a MLB player. We don't know whether Herostratus was right- or left-handed; should we thus delete him, too? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus is not a baseball player. Can you find ONE just one other article on wikipedia of a baseball player who we don't know the handiness. If you want to compare the two pages Herostratus qualifies under Basic criteria while Brown does not.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a ton of 19th-century baseball player artcles that we dont know the handiness of... Gid Gardner as an example.. Spanneraol (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, just made one. Now, let's not make this a WP:WAX argument. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:05, 31 March 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. As has been said, consider doing this as a category system instead.  Sandstein  04:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of novels by point of view[edit]

List of novels by point of view (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unnecessary list attempting to organize novels by "point of view", which is completely unsourced personal views of what constitutes a "well known example" (per the lead). Well-known to who? What source says these are the best novels for each point-of-view and only these specific ones? The scope is far too broad for any kind of valid list, and one cannot just randomly pick novels to say "here are examples of this kind or that kind" of POV. Point of view (literature) already covers the basics of the actual topic of point of view. This list appears to fail WP:NOT and WP:LIST, and has apparently its need to exist has disputed a few times on its talk page, but no AfD or PROD was done. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:SALAT, WP:NOTDIR. Considering that POV methods like first-person narrative are extremely popular among writers, the list is simply too broad in scope to be useful or maintainable. — Rankiri (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is an impossible to maintain article. the name of the article demands that it be a list of all notable novels sorted by point of view. thats not an appropriate article subject. examples of novels with certain pov's could be listed in the articles on various povs. however, if the articles defenders are really interested in preserving this in some manner, they could make sure each novel listed states the novels pov in its article, and create categories for each pov type: in addition to Category:Point of view, have Category:First person narrative novels, second person narrative, etc. we already have Category:Fiction with unreliable narrators, which is a good category in this vein. then they could build up article lists within the categories. lots of work, but i really see that as the only way to do this. this article is essentially a teaching guide for a class, not an encyclopedia article. The main defender of this article, TheEditrix2, admits he wrote it to help teach writers, and his user page doesnt exactly facilitate cooperation on articles. really, thats just rude!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT as the subject is too broad to be manageable since it would include every novel we have. The category system works much better for this type of organization. ThemFromSpace 00:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it serves an educational purpose. Plese read talk page for explanation of its educational value. Numerous of my editing clients have been sent to the page, as have my teenaged writing students, kids who didn't otherwise grasp the fine differences between various literary POVs. The POV page simply doesn't serve the same purpose. --TheEditrix2 05:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please recall WP:USEFUL and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. Besides, it seems that the list's educational value is inversely proportional to the list's size. If properly maintained, it'll have to house thousands, if not tens of thousands, of entries, and lists of this size are neither educational nor encyclopedic. — Rankiri (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tend to agree with TheEditrix that it's helpful to have illustrations of the different types of narrative described in point of view (literature). Some examples should be in that article. The problem with making an entire list is that every work of fiction ever written would fall into one of the categories on the list. Even if the list could be limited to a handful of representative examples for each type of narration, it's unlikely that one could find a representative sample of books that are so well-known that the mere mention of the title is enough to be educational. It's better that examples like Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, Gone With the Wind, etc. be part of the parent article, and that longer lists should be part of spinoffs like First-person narrative, Third person limited omniscient, etc. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't wish to pout or argue. But to those who gleefully join in AFDs, may I just point out how discouraging it is to contributors when their serious efforts to contribute useful information to Wikipedia are dismissed and deleted on specious interpretations of obscure rules? The reason my profile is "rude" (c.f. MercuryWoodRose's irrelevent assessment of me personality, above) is that I tired of warring over nonsense. I shall now retire to a corner and weep because once again, my well intended efforts to contribute useful educational information have been poo'ed upon. And why? Is Wikipedia running short on server space? Is the Internet about to overrun its bandwidth? Leaving it alone would do NO harm, and deleting will make Wikipedia a slightly less helpful (and a less kind) place. But there you go. I shall leave, again, for an extended period of time to tend to my disapointment in the human race. Sigh. --TheEditrix2 15:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very poignant. But who said that the information couldn't be contributed to Wikipedia? The debate is over whether it ought to be in a separate article all its own. There are plenty of existing articles where these examples could be added. The main thing to remember is that if one is going to create a new article, then there are basic rules to follow, the main ones being to list one's sources of information and to avoid "original synthesis". The rules are less strict when it comes to adding to articles that are already in place. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment maybe this could be moved to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Books and expanded as a complement to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Books/Lists of books. Guest9999 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 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 Ridgefield School District (New Jersey). Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slocum skewes school[edit]

Slocum skewes school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article about a primary school simply copies information from other websites and is mostly statistics. As written, there is no inherent notability. Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 17:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ridgefield School District (New Jersey). I can't see anything that makes this school notable, and it really seems like a copyright violation. PDCook (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge to Ridgefield School District (New Jersey)#Schools per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:28, 24 March 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 Ute Lemper. It may well have references now, but they're not significant, and it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS as it stands Black Kite 18:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (US)[edit]

Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (US) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A version of an album that has no article (one has apparently been deleted thrice.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The version of this article without "(US)" at the end has been deleted three times, all due to copyright infringement. I can't tell if they're the same, though. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Google News search turns up coverage of this album in the San Francisco Chronicle, Jerusalem Post, Sydney Morning Herald, Welt Online and the Broadway magazine Playbill [27]. Why is this being repeatedly deleted? Warrah (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see the problem -- a copyvio. I rewrote the article into a stub, removed the copyvio concerns and added two references. THis should be okay. Warrah (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:18, 23 March 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) 10:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaverim[edit]

Chaverim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable organization. It has been tagged for over a year with no improvement. In violation of NOTWEBHOST and WP:N. Joe407 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand these organizations are similar to Hatzalah. It just needs to be expanded. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a well-known and significant chesed (humanitarian) organization in Haredi communities on the East Coast, along with Hatzalah, Shomrim, and Misaskim. Note: The name should be spelled Chaveirim, since that's the way it's pronounced and that's where more hits can be found (here and here and here). Yoninah (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep... if someone commits to improve it forthwith. Otherwise, let it go. Yoninah - 74000 Google hits with this spelling v 34,400 with the extra "i" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovid (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What search engines are you using? The "news" link above yields only 2350 hits for "Chaverim". Aside from its website, Chaveirim generally shies away from publicity, so most of those 74000 hits that you found were to Reform congregations, camps, and general usage of the term chaverim (friends). The links that I cited in my vote were to a scattering of news stories that mention in passing the organization named Chaveirim. Yoninah (talk) 08:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Needs reliable sources that assert notatility. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:34, 29 March 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. SNOW dekete Tone 21:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas splash[edit]

Vegas splash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Covered by just about every section of WP:NOT, unfortunately I don't see a speedy criterion for this mess. Snow delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. WP:NOT#ESSAY, general vandalism and garbage text. There is nothing worth saving here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, now that I look at it, I think this might meet WP:CSD#G3. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per HelloAnnyong. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow/speedy delete. There's simply no chance that this version of the article will survive the deletion discussion. Close enough to WP:G3. — Rankiri (talk) 16:21, 23 March 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 Not-delete. There is no consensus on whether to merge, redirect, or neither, but there is a consensus against deletion. It is open to an editor believing merging or redirection to be an appropriate course of action to boldly do either, or to open a talk page discussion of same. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Jackson Book 6[edit]

Percy Jackson Book 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD : speculative article. Violates WP:CRYSTAL Codf1977 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this article shouldnt be deleted. It has refrences and some detail. I think that it also shouldnt be deleted as the release is only half a year away and it has been confirmed and everything -Tommader- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommader (talk • contribs) 16:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Camp Half-Blood, Book One as per this Amazon link and rewrite for encyclopedic tone. This title does not seem accurate, but is a reasonable search term. LadyofShalott 18:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This Article is now called Camp Half Blood Book one all the details is confirmed and has no reason to be deleted - Tommader - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommader (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  hold on a - Not sure that a book store is a WP:RS for a book release date Codf1977 (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Percy Jackson & the Olympians#Sequel until a title has been announced and confirmed. Possibly save information as subpage, or incorporate into Percy Jackson & the Olympians. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Percy Jackson & the Olympians#Sequel. The information is useful, but this does seem a bit early to make the article. —Airplaneman— 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article shouldnt be deleted because it has some good information and although it may seem too early to make an article I think it is time soon. Monopoly44 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monopoly44 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC) — Monopoly44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep because this article has good information and is very clear and clean. It has no Graffittii!!! Which is very good. FeelDaBuzz —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeelDaBuzz (talk • contribs) 17:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC) — FeelDaBuzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Note – SPA-tags re-added. –MuZemike 18:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Percy Jackson & the Olympians#Sequel per WP:CRYSTAL. BTW, it reads like fan article.--mono 00:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Percy Jackson & the Olympians#Sequel until a title has been announced and confirmed. I second PrincessofLlyr and Airplaneman. It's too early for this page to appear. -Mktsay123 (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)#[reply]
• Comment - as the nom, I support what looks like the consensus view of Merge and #Redirect to Percy Jackson & the Olympians#Sequel. Codf1977 (talk) 08:26, 31 March 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) 04:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles TaeKwon-Do Federation[edit]

British Isles TaeKwon-Do Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non notable minor organisation with no sources brought from Martial arts Article Review Nate^t/_c 14:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate^t/_c 14:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Nate^t/_c 14:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE. No evidence of significant 3rd party coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but no objection to writing about the British Federation in International Taekwon-Do Federation, in which case a redirect would be reasonable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficient sources to prove notability Dwanyewest (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STDUniversity.org[edit]

STDUniversity.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable website, that does not meet WP:ORG Codf1977 (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable website, does not meet the website notability guideline either, no published sources. COI notice - I got my undergrad degree from there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article - While Wikipedia's notability guidelines are fairly substantial, they are also, to an extent, open to interpretation. This topic is no more or less notable than similar pages that have not been tagged for deletion; specifically, STD Wizard, which is a similar website that seems to have been deemed notable enough to stay. In fact, if STD Wizard has more external media to back it up on the notability front, then this is due to the fact that it is a much older site. As someone who is familiar with the work of both sites, I fail to see a distinction. Of course, this isn't a plea to have the STD Wizard entry removed; quite the contrary - it is an important resource of which people ought to be aware. However, so too does STDUniversity.org serve a similarly notable purpose. Thank you. --HealthGal (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comparison with another article is irrelevant. For one thing that one may show more notability than this one, even if you don't see it; for another thing they may both lack notability: there are, unfortunately, many articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines but have not yet been dealt with. If the current topic does not have external sources to support its notability because it is new then it is not yet notable, whether or not it may become notable in the future. The fact that the site "serves a ... notable purpose" is not a criterion for inclusion: Wikipedia's notability standard is based on coverage in independent sources, not on what purpose the subject seeks to serve. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A lack of independent sources, either cited in the article or found on searching. Also the article is somewhat promotional in character. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No reliable sources to demonstrate any notability for this organization; "ought to be aware" isn't the same as "are aware", and unfortunately the difference is advertising. Closing admin please note also that Tracey Powell by the same creator is currently tagged for speedy deletion and asserts roughly the same level of notability for his connection with this website. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am currently working to revise the Tracey Powell article and am happy to do the same with this one as well. However, you state that the piece "asserts roughly the same level of notability for his connection with this website." If you read the article on Powell, you'll see that it barely makes mention of this website, but rather, focuses on his career and contributions to the medical testing field. I appreciate your position with respect to either article, but your comment above implies that the Powell article's only claim to notability lies in the fact that he is connected with this website, which is far from the case.

--HealthGal (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've moved the article Tracey Powell to User:HealthGal/Tracey Powell so it could be worked on there. I've informed the user of the citation, notability and weasel/peacock guidelines which would need to be addressed before it could be moved back. There is every possiblity that notability will not be achieved. If so, fair enough. I would suggest to the closing admin of this afd that instead of deleting, the same could be done here. Stephen! ^Coming... 23:29, 23 March 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) 10:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burton–Judson Courts[edit]

Burton–Judson Courts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article which makes no claim to notability and does not present multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. TM 14:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
• Comment: this article is about a dormitory at the University of Chicago. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being?--TM 14:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That the subject of the article was not clear from either the article title nor the nomination, and as such folks browsing the deletion discussions may not know whether this subject is of interest to them or not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the the UC article. No indication there are multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage needed to show notability for a standalone article. Edison (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added another reference to the article. There is independent coverage of this building. I suggest that User:Namiba engage in a comprehensive discussion of university dorm articles at WikiProject Universities rather than PRODing and redirecting such articles without consensus. Racepacket (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - It is mentioned in an architectural book, which seems independent. Coverage is still pretty minimal. PDCook (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim to notability, let alone evidence of it. If it get a mention in an architectural book, give it a mention in the article on the university. Anything else is undue prominence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Overall, I think this one is notable enough. The architecture book cited in the article devotes a few paragraphs to this structure. There seems to be some more info in this book on Julius Rosenwald, and the AIA Guide to Chicago briefly highlights the building. In addition, this Chicago Tribune article seems to discuss the planning for the Burton-Judson Courts. It doesn't use that name to describe the halls, but all the other facts fit (Zantzinger et al are described as the architects; the structure was to be built between Ellis and Greenwood Avenues, south of the Midway; Julius Rosenwald was involved, etc). Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this one is a keeper, it might be the oldest UofC dorm, and it certainly has a lot of mentions in travel and architecture guides. Speciate (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Eli Sentman Eli Sentman doesn't meet Wikipedia's Notability Standard. That name should be removed from the list of people who have lived in the dorm. Speciate (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.143.64 (talk) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Chicago. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maclean Hall[edit]

Maclean Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article which makes no claim to notability and does not present multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. TM 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to the article about the university. This dorm, a former retirement home, houses fewer than 100 students. No independent and reliable references with significant coverage are presented to support notability. Edison (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are independent sources if you look for them. For example, University of Chicago off the record By Joshua Steinman (pages 53 and 59). This is one of many, many deletions which User:Namiba is attempting by redirects, PRODs and in some cases AfDs. I suggest that he work to gain consensus at Wikiprojects University or the individual college article talk pages rather than this bold attempt to delete so many articles. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to the University article. I don't see any independent sources that demonstrate the notability necessary to warrant a stand-alone article. PDCook (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This dorm was an old folks home that was bought by the UofC and converted. It has absolutely no redeeming features or architectural interest. Speciate (talk) 05:00, 31 March 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) 04:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Contribution Of The Indian Sufis To The Communal Harmony..By R.M.Chopra[edit]

The Contribution Of The Indian Sufis To The Communal Harmony..By R.M.Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Essay. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Unsalvageable essay. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions.
• Delete, and likely userfy. Interesting original research, and it is good to have a new editor who is researching these valuable topics; but not an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rabbabodrool (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Freikorp (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Warrah (talk) 16:29, 24 March 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 University of Chicago. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadview Hall[edit]

Broadview Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article which makes no claim to notability and does not present multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. TM 14:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect Merge to the article about the university. No independent and reliable sources are presented with significant coverage to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is one of many, many such proposed deletions by User:Namiba, and I respectfully suggest that he work toward consensus at Wikiproject Universities rather than proceed unilaterally. Racepacket (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket, please read the top of the page when editing this one. It says "Remember that the debate is not a vote, so recommendations on the course of action to be taken should always be sustained by arguments." What is your argument for keeping this article? The others? If you have multiple, verifiable third party sources to provide, fantastic. I may withdraw my nomination of some articles now that sources have been found. But simply disagreeing with my choice of process is not a rationale for keeping this or any other article.--TM 18:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to the University article. I'm not seeing any independent reliable sources to suggest that this building is notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. PDCook (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim to notability, let alone evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not finding anything at all in the Google searches provided above. The only thing that could save this article is if somebody could find out what its name was when it was a hotel, and then show that that hotel was notable. I have never heard anything about the history of the dorm/hotel, most likely because there is nothing to say. Speciate (talk) 05:28, 31 March 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. "Delete" opinions may no longer be relevant following expansion by Racepacket.  Sandstein  05:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breckinridge Hall[edit]

Breckinridge Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article which makes no claim to notability and does not present multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. I removed a significant amount of "content" because it was total original research. It had absolutely no sources and should not be included/restored even if kept. TM 13:58, 23 March 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 Illinois-related deletion discussions.
• Comment. This is about a dormitory at the University of Chicago. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect Merge to the article about the university. No independent and reliable sources are presented with significant coverage to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:IINFO. PROD removed without improvement or comment. Some student dormitories are notable, but so many are not that they feature at #4 in the List of bad article ideas. This is not one of the notable ones. I'm not sure it was advisable to remove so much of the text before AfDing, but the full version can be seen here and does not add anything but gossipy trivia. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to University of Chicago, non notable residence hall same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stony Island Hall.—Sandahl (♀) 23:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is one of many, many articles about college residence halls which User:Namiba has tried to PROD, redirect or AfD. I respectfully request that he seek consensus at WikiProject Universities before proceeding unilaterally. Racepacket (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article. The building dates back to 1916 and served as a YWCA-type residence for working, single women until it was purchased by the University of Chicago in 1968. The building has references in books independent of the University. This is definitely a keeper. Racepacket (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per new independent, non-trivial sources. Good job Racepacket. If only all of the articles you have commented to keep actually had sources like this one.--TM 13:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIDAsol[edit]

AIDAsol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: A notice has been made to the associated WikiProject at WT:SHIPS#Cruise ship AFD per WP:AFD#Notifying interested people. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found a number of German news sources that easily established notability. I added just a few translated ones in as EL's but there are more out there on Google News. Silverseren^C 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cruise ships are inherently notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnival Glory (2nd nomination), especially my arguments there. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:N and multitudinous other cruise ship deletion nominations that failed. Haus^Talk 05:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Timothy Bloodworth (2nd nomination). As the ship is under construction it does not fail WP:CRYSTAL. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as for other cruise ships recently. A ship under construction has an element of WP:CRYSTAL about it, but it is not merely planned, the normal context for that guideline. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several decent sources about this ship (including some in German), and that will definitely go up when the ship is complete. It is still notable now, as it is far into construction. I largely agree with MBK004: cruise ships, certainly of this size, are inherently notable. Jhbuk (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Click Google news link at the top of the AFD, and check it next time before nominating something on the basis you don't think there is coverage of something. Dream Focus 10:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ship sure to be of interest to travelers when it begins to operate. Perhaps someone can say where this ship will cruise, if known at this time. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability has been established. Side point: am I the only one who wants to complain about their choice of names for the ships? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The names of the ships, or the titles of the articles about them? Per WP:NC-S, these should be at "MV AIDAwhatever". Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstone Hall[edit]

Blackstone Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article which makes no claim to notability and does not present multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. I removed a significant amount of "content" because it was total original research. It had absolutely no sources and should not be included/restored even if kept. TM

• Merge the the UC article. No indication there are multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage needed to show notability for a standalone article. Edison (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N and WP:IINFO. PROD removed without improvement or comment. Some student dormitories are notable, but so many are not that they feature at #4 in the List of bad article ideas. This is not one of the notable ones. I'm not sure it was advisable to remove so much of the text before AfDing, but the full version can be seen here and does not add anything but gossipy trivia - we don't really need to know about the "amaranthine scene of cat-pee" in the elevator. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim to notability, let alone evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This was another small hotel (for nurses) that the UofC bought and converted. Nothing particular is said about the architecture or history of this dorm in the Google searches provided above. Speciate (talk) 05:35, 31 March 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) 04:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast City FC[edit]

Belfast City FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails notability requirements Mooretwin (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apart from the pro teams in the US, 6-a-side teams are rarely (if ever) notable and there's nothing to suggest this is an exception. Bettia (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bettia. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max Palevsky Residential Commons[edit]

Max Palevsky Residential Commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article which makes no claim to notability and does not present multiple, independent, non-trivial sources TM 13:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment currently working on looking for sources. Here's one: [28] .— DroEsperanto (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is yet another of many, many articles on college residences that User:Namiba has either PRODed, redirected, or brought to AfD. I respectfully suggest that he build consensus at WikiProject Universities before proceeding on his mass deletion effort unilaterally. Racepacket (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and let User:DroEsperanto look for sources. I don't see why the rush to delete these articles, and agree that this work should have been brought up at the WikiProject for comment first.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim to notability, let alone evidence of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. This huge architectural monstrosity generated quite a bit of negative press, unless I am mistaken. If no sources are forthcoming, renominate it. Speciate (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are not legitimate reasons to keep an article. Either find the sources now for a stand alone article or it will be merged into the forthcoming article on housing at Chicago.--TM 06:36, 31 March 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 Close, nomination withdrawn and no !votes to delete (non admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Tower[edit]

Pierce Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article which makes no claim to notability and does not present multiple, independent, non-trivial sources TM 13:45, 23 March 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 Illinois-related deletion discussions.
• Comment. This article is about a dormitory at the University of Chicago. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the UC article. No indication there are multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage needed to show notability for a standalone article. Edison (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added more detail, a couple book refs and an Emporis ref. Novickas (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom now that multiple, independent, non-trivial sources have been provided. Thanks for finding these Novickas.--TM 18:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Haijie[edit]

Zhang_Haijie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

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

Delete This article is a hoax, a nonsense as well as outrageous, inappropriate and offensive and unconstructive. Youmaynotknowme (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC) — Youmaynotknowme (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have read the "Deletion Policy" and fully understood the content. And my decision to delete the page is in accordance with the terms specified in the Policy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

I have also read the "Guide To Deletion" and fully understood the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youmaynotknowme (talk • contribs) 09:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to delete the page for a few good reasons:

• The creater of the page has obviously vandalized it by giving informations, strongly believed to be false, incorrect and/or inaccurate.

• The creator of the page has given out someone else's private information without getting the permission from the affected person, hence, violating the rights to that person's personal privacy.

• This is completely nonsense, meaningless, unconstructive and outrageous.

• Obviously, I have tried the "db delete because" function as explained in the help section but does not work.

• Here are just some of the hyperlinks to the help section where you can find advices for user who finds article inappropriate, offensive and also, MOST IMPORTANTLY, violating the "comunally agreed policies and guidelines."

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Vandalism

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_discussions

Please take your time to consider these facts seriously and grant my request to delete the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Haijie for good.

If you were to take a look at the "History" section at the top of the page, you will also find others' opinions, concerns and debates contributed by other members of the public about removing and deleting the page.

Please note that many people including myself sees this as an etiquette problem.

• Keep. This presenter certainly seems notable by wikipedia standards, being the anchor on a news program and winning a few awards to boot. I don't see which parts of the article are causing concern, perhaps the nominator would like to point these out? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While this person seems notable per WP:BIO (won an award), I'm not finding many reliable sources (I'm not sure if this ref is reliable). Are there are non-English refs that I'm not finding? The nominator should also read WP:BEFORE, as AfD is for articles that do not meet Wikipedia's notability policy. This is not the place to deal with editing/content issues. PDCook (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As individual is not a hoax and the award and award nominations appear to meet WP:ANYBIO [29][30]. Translating these from Chinese language could be further helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Please note that "Notability" is only ONE OF THE GUIDELINE to create a good article. Furthermore, I DO NOT SEE that this article has conform with the "Notability" guideline. Our main discussion here is about DELETING this article and I think it is only correct if we pay our attention on whether or not this article has indeed violated the criteria for "Deletion", as specified in the "Deletion Policy". In this discussion, we have to be relevant to be on the track, NOT off the track. I strongly urge commentators to read the "Notability Guideline" properly before providing their opinions on this issue. By carefully reading and understanding it will help you to provide a reasonable point of view on this discussion. Please not that Wikipedia's "Guideline and Policy" is a general suggestion to users to make proper use of it, not to misuse it. It is also NOT above the Law. Any found guilty of violating the Law can face legal consequences. Please read this carefully again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons.Youmaynotknowme (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you say regarding legal action, and please review the WP:Legal threats policy. I'm pretty sure everyone here is familiar with the notability policy. I question if you understand it fully. Can you provide us with the language in the policies that you believe this article violates? If she is an anchor of a major news program and has won awards, it seems pretty clear she meets the notability policy per WP:BIO. Your nebulous claims of "hoax" and "nonsense", and your links to policies aren't going to get this article deleted. You need to explain explicitly what policies this article violates, and why that warrants deletion. Also, you only get to !vote once, and I've struck out your second vote. PDCook (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can't see anything in the article that looks libellous or defamatory. I also can't see much in the way of sourcing that's accessible. I am puzzled as to the vehemence of the attack on the article's existence and as to why it is described as a hoax. Some better info might help to explain that. I can't really see either how the creator of an article can be said to vandalise it. I note that the creator of the article has edited many different pages, but that Youmaynotknowme appears to be a single purpose account. Peridon (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going for a Keep as convincing evidence for deletion hasn't appeared. Come to that, I don't thing that any evidence for deletion has appeared... It seems to be just allegations and 'original research' - or possible personal prejudice of some kind. "Please note that many people including myself sees this as an etiquette problem"? Where are they? We often get a flock of socks and SPAs in AfD. Unusually, we only appear to have the nominator here, both in terms of wanting to delete and of 'knowing' why it should be deleted. Peridon (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have expressed their views on Talk:Zhang Haijie recently. Please take a look. _LDS (talk) 04:58, 27 March 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.