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

The result was Withdrawing as per Metropolitan90. Since it is the first time I close an AfD, can a more experienced editor please check I did not foul up? Thanks! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

( ) (disambiguation)[edit]

( ) (disambiguation) (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 think the article covers a non-notable topic Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emoticon. Mnmazur (talk)

Comment I think we should include the symbol "()" in the article, but I fear that "( ) (disambiguation)" would be an extremely improbable redirect... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Given that there is an album by this name as well as a film, both of which have Wikipedia articles, having a disambiguation page isn't a bad idea. The bad idea was to name these items ( ), but there's nothing Wikipedia can do about that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I must say I was unaware we had an article about those two masterpieces of rhetoric; therefor, apart from vaguely feeling old, I withdraw this nomination... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even though I'm not sure about the whitespace just redirecting it to the emoticon page makes no sense. Gonna add a link to 'brackets' on there too.--Savonneux (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The pre-existing hatnote already on ( ) makes this disambiguation redundant. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep three entries is an acceptable size for a dab page. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Perfectly fine disambig page. Lugnuts (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Padraig Parkinson[edit]

Padraig Parkinson (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)

Poker player with some nominal success. Biggest claim to fame is a 1999 3rd place finish at the WSOP main event and having won a television series event which is not very significant. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Notified WP:Poker---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I think he's on the border of notability. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nod, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that somebody could come in and salvage this article. As is, I don't think he quite makes it. 3rd place in the WSOP today would get my attention, but in 1999 it wasn't nearly the same thing.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, just short of speedy keep. The article's external links have two reliable source interviews of him, including one in three parts. His third place in 1999 is ireelevant to notability. What matters is independant coverage in third party reliable sources. He has it, though obviously the article could be improved with refs. 2005 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of poker players have short bio's written up on them. That is not an indication of notability, it is one of existence. The two interviews do give some credence, but I'd still want more. Interviews are not all that uncommon---speciality presses are often looking for "news". If there are actual articles about him, then I'd more than willingly withdraw. There is just too much crap to find articles about him.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fellow writes for Cardplayer, is quoted as an expert in mainstream coverage, has a lot of interviews, profiles and news stories about tournament wins. There is so "much crap" because he is notable, not because he is not. 2005 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:BEFORE. Google News Archives have plenty of good coverage: [5]. Joal Beal (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I gotta go delete on this one... Yeah, he's earned a lot of money playing poker, but there's been no major championship wins that I see. Borderline... but we're not a poker almanac.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with a lot of these poker articles is that they are of people who are less meaningful than local politicians. Local politicians/radio/tv personalities may have some coverage, but outside of the poker world they are non-entities---even within the poker world, their notability is nominal at best.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree with you, and I believe the article should be deleted, I would caution that "not meaningful" does not necessarily translate into "not notable" -- Something with meaning implies that individuals place value on it, and that drags in point-of-view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while a respect the Nominator I must disagree with this choice, Padraig Parkinson is the 3rd most tournament poker winner in all of Ireland [6] with over $1.5 million in earnings, his 3rd place finish at the 1999 Main Event isn't his only success in poker not to mention that he is the author of Paddy's Corner @ Cardplayer this is his latest article from this month [7] and is a writer and sponsored pro @ Boylepoker [8]. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 06:41, 12 May 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Liston[edit]

Tom Liston (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)

Security consultant who does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Only reference is self-published. Created by a sock of User:JohnBambenek, who has since been banned for sock-puppetry. Claritas (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Notability issues ... and the sources don't cover the article.Onefinalstep (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just checking -- has the required wp:before search been done? Or is nom's statement as to the sources in the article only.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a reasonable time looking for significant coverage through thet web, but didn't find anything. Claritas (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking you didn't do a good search, then. Suggestion: Try searching for the phrases "Tom Liston" and "security" in google news. Then go to archives, and run the search there. You will find more sources in archives ... and I just tossed a couple in from books.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. Per this, this, this, this, and this. Lots of coverage, by many RSs. We need to do better searches before nom'ing and voting, so as not to waste everyones' time or delete notable peoples' bios.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn. Claritas (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [9] Ample coverage. Dream Focus 23:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 15:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Areapal[edit]

Areapal (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)

Nominated for speedy, but asserts notability with one reference from Business Line (a publisher of whitepapers). Other reference (expressbuzz) probably doesn't meet WP:Reliable sources. No Google news hits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Ok. Should i cite more sources ? . But most of their news in India were of Print media. From papers like Deccan Chronicle, New Indian Express, Times of India's Bangalore Mirror. etc. So what should i do ? . Your inputs would be helpful to me in creating better articles please guide as this is my first article and i wouldn't want it to be deleted at any cost :) . Thanks for your time. - Spoiltsport (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITEHOW for some advice on citing newspapers. John of Reading (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@John Thank you for your suggestion :) - Spoiltsport (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @every1 Added Some more citations . All i had to do is a general google search and went to the news sites like http://deccanchronicle.com , http://bangaloremirror.com , http://hindu.com and searched for areapal. And they are trusted news agencies in India. Thanks - Spoiltsport (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Enough coverage in RS to meet WP:GNG. I have cleaned up the article a bit now (disclosure, original author asked for my help as an editor familiar with south india). Business Line is one of the top three business newspapers in India and express buzz is the website of The New Indian Express. And the author has provided coverage in The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle and Bangalore Mirror. These are major newspapers in India with circulation in millions. Taken together the company meets GNG criteria easily.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breakbeat (drummer)[edit]

Breakbeat (drummer) (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)

Drummer who does not meet WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage in reliable sources found - only mentioned in context of N-Dubz. Claritas (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would actually put it as db-band, as he is not notable. WackyWace ^talk 17:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The 'references' are youtube and a WP link. Clubmarx (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Should have been speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 15:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Menachem Creditor[edit]

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

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

No indication this individual meets requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, based on the discussion at the first AfD--but I do agree that the article was lacking third party references to reflect the information presented there. I added some sources. Creditor appears to be a reasonably significant and controversial figure within the Conservative movement as an advocate for egalitarianism and gay rights, among other things.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY, although even more sources would be helpful for a BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to me this makes the cut. There are sources in the article to assert notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He gets mentioned in the news. [10] calls him "a leading advocate of gay ordination". Dream Focus 09:15, 13 May 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 The Towering Inferno. Shimeru (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Tower[edit]

Glass 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)

Fictional skyscraper which does not meet any of the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY. Article may also be a violation of WP:OR Claritas (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to The Towering Inferno. The notability of the movie "The Towering Inferno" does not automatically make the fictional tower itself notable. The Glass Tower was created solely for that one movie, and much of this page talks about filming locations and how various movie scenes were created. To my knowledge, the purposes of several floors were explicitly mentioned in the in-movie dialogue; this could be incorporated into the movie article in a section regarding the tower itself. The name "Glass Tower" is clearly a plausible search term for the movie, but I couldn't locate a sufficient number of reliable independent sources to justify keeping this page separate from the article about the movie. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significance on its own. Joal Beal (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per SoCalSuperEagle Polarpanda (talk) 19:17, 10 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cavenger Image Architects[edit]

Cavenger Image Architects (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)

With apparently no secondary coverage online for this firm, there does not appear to be any possiblity of establishing notability. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this proposal. The article cites several references and is obviously notable because of the principals involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie808 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on real estate developed donahue peebles that doesn't cite any sources other than his company's website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Donahue_Peebles) - yet that article seems to be cleared. It seems that's an important article because he's a notable person, in the same vein as this is. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie808 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R. Donahue Peebles hasn't been "cleared", it's tagged for lack of references. Please see WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG for the relevant notability guidelines (note - the coverage would need to relate to the firm, not the people associated with it - see WP:NOTINHERITED). With only 5 Google hits, none of which are secondary coverage, it would seem impossible for this subject to meet those guidelines. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that is actually the case, look no further than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWT for a great example of a firm who has 0 press citations, yet has not been flagged for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie808 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First, other stuff exists; this deletion discussion is concerned solely with the merits (or lack thereof) of this article. That said, the merits are lacking. As Cassandra 73 noted, there are minimal secondary sources. Accordingly, this article should be deleted for failing WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable PR firm. Alfie808, if the article is deleted you can request that it be placed in your user space so you can work on it. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:12, 16 May 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 deleted (CSD G3) by Anthony.bradbury. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 21:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Harker[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced bio since it creation in 2005. I looked around and could not verify any of the facts stated in the article. Googlesearching produces mostly Wikipedia mirrors or pages where the info looks to have been lifted from Wikipedia. No mention of Harker at Santa Rosa Junior College site, where Harker was supposed to have been a chancellor. In fact, the College does not seem to have the post of the chancellor and instead the highest ranking administrator is the President. Fails WP:V, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HOAX. Things like this are why Wikipedia reconsidered its policy of allowing an IP address to create an encyclopedia article [11]. Congratulations to 140.247.154.20 (maybe I should him Mr. Harker) for creating something that sounded true for 4 1/2 years. Although this wasn't drawn from a book, it did end up in one of those Webster's Quotations books that preserved much of Wikipedia's early nonesense in print form. If you accomplish nothing else in your life, you did get into a book. Mandsford (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. I've tagged it for speedy. Should I just delete it? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I don't think anyone removed a PROD tag. In any event, an article created by an IP address is, to me, no different than an article created by a sockpuppet. Mandsford (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McLean (BNP)[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Candidate who receives no support. Does not meet GNG or POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He may not be an elected candidate but he is Deputy chairman of the BNP, and its organiser for Scotland. That I think does make him notable, he is not just another fai8led politician.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. He's received some news coverage as deputy chairman of the BNP and regional organiser for Scotland, including Panorama,[12] and he's notorious for giving a Nazi salute:[13]. But I can't find what I'd class as "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Fences&Windows 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

• Comment http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bnp-boss-accused-of-stirring-up-racial-tensions-567210.html

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/the-BNP-unmasked.php

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=47

http://www.mirror.co.uk/topics/british-national-party-bnp/

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=249

There are a few others but they do not seem to be more then just mentions that he is standing. There is also a vague BBC profile.

So he has received some coverage.

• Delete A minor figure in a minor party, little significant news coverage. --Snowded ^TALK 16:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Deputy chairman might just possibly make him notable, but we would need more indication of how important this post is in terms of BNP internal structures, how long he held it etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A long as it is presenting accurate information, I see no reason to delete it. The only thing I would say is for someone to try and extend it with information such as date of birth or a picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry, but that argument is contrary to "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", see WP:NOT. PatGallacher (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage for this person. --Sky4t0k (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per sky4t0k. The coverage all seems to be for the party with only incidental mentions for this guy. David V Houston (talk) 19:00, 16 May 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 deletion under WP:G12 - unambiguous copyright infringement. - Vianello (Talk) 22:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rafi Hamid[edit]

Rafi Hamid (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 with some WP:COI issues. The article makes some claims to notability but I don't think they're enough. The article suggests he's been "recognized" by DrivingSales.com but it looks to me like he's just listed there among a laundry list of other people where folks can place reviews. Most of the rest is very peacockish. The last link, to a press release, perhaps contains some salvageable notability claims but I think they skate at the boundary. I welcome other opinions. — e. ripley\^talk 14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No references whatsoever, even to prove that he won any awards for being a "professional trainer" (or which ones he won). Also, this statement,

  If and when you hear "INTERNET DEALER" you know it was started by Rafi Hamid in 2001 and now 10 years later it is a buzz word in an automotive industry.

  is highly advertisement-like, and has no reference. --Brandon5485 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Little[edit]

Antony Little (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 previously deleted page. All the concerns which led to the original page being deleted still apply. There are no third party sources which cover Little in any detail and his claim to fame seems to be being a local councillor in a small city and an unsuccessful election candidate. He therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. as violation of WP:POLITICIAN. Claritas (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure it does fail, as a city council, Norwich falls I think wihtin the context of a province (its not govenerned by Norfolk council, but as a seperate entity) as such he may meet the criteria. Basicly it dep0ends oon how wiki defiines province.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Table of administrative divisions by country, Norwich is a third level authority: first level would be the equivalent of US state and in terms of England, the provincial equivalent would be the Regions of England, only one of which (London) has its own council. Numerous previous AFDs have judged that local councillors on smaller cities don't meet the criteria and for good reason - if we set the bar that low we'd have millions of articles to deal with. Valenciano (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the regions have no elected assembly. The equvalent to a US state in terms of elected representives are the counties, unless you are saying that the next level of elected representation does not count?Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The regions of England are clearly the equivalent of a province. In the absence of an assembly covering those regions then yes, the next level of government doesn't by default become a province. Otherwise that would lead to the nonsensical situation that in the future if an East of England Assembly was set up, councillors would then cease to be notable. As notability is not temporary that would be against policy. Valenciano (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arguments over whether Norwich Council should count as a province is a red herring - what was really ought to consider is how significant the city councillors are - and compared to members of the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies, the Greater London Assembly or US State legislatures, there's no contest. I did find an article that he was the subject of in the Guardian, but that seems to be part of blanket coverage of all Parliamentary candidates. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I am not sure whether Norwich is a unitary or district council, but whichever it is its councillors are NN. As a Parliamentary candidate who was not elected, he is also NN. Summary NN: comclusion delete. Arguments based on the American (or Canadian) system are inappropriate. When we had regional assemblies, they were indirectly elected joint bodies between councils, with no legislative powers and membership did not confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 13 May 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 La Trobe University. Feel free to add any content to that article JForget 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dress of La Trobe University[edit]

Academic dress of La Trobe University (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 reason to have an entire article dedicated to one university's graduation regalia. — e. ripley\^talk 12:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to La Trobe University (It's an unlikely search term, but redirect in order to retain edit history) -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Boing!. If La Trobe did something wildly unusual or unique, I'd say merge over to the article on academic dress in general - but that doesn't appear to be the case. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect or just plain delete, nothing here merits a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant topic with no real notability. -Reconsider! 09:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and snow close, and lets move on.--Adam in MO Talk 10:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no referances Sophie(: 12:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 15:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Friedman[edit]

Marsha Friedman (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 proposed deletion of this article on 9 April, but the PROD was removed by the author. I do not believe that the concerns have been addressed, so the exact same reasoning applies here, viz. Does not appear to be a notable person, lacking in "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" per WP:GNG, WP:BIO.  Chzz  ►  11:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect (to EMSI Public Relations, which seems to be Ms Friedman's sole claim-to-fame). TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional piece with no claims of importance. Do not redirect but also delete EMSI Public Relations which itself is non notable but another promotional piece Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I certainly wouldn't object to t'other article being deleted, in which case obviously I'd support "delete" instead of "delete/redirect" for this article. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks in dependent coverage in reliable sources. I've tagged the company's article with G11 as it was based on press releases only. Pcap ping 05:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 15:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkware[edit]

Linkware (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 does not city ANY source whatsoever and its notability is in question. It is probably an original research. Furthermore, it is not an encyclopedic stub; it is more like a Wiktionary entry.

Delete or transfer to Wiktionary. Fleet Command (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Transfer to Wiktionary I've heard of this; I've never heard it called that. However, if a reference can be found, then it could be a definition on Wiktionary. --Brandon5485 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per wp:neo. Pcap ping 22:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North End Eagles[edit]

North End Eagles (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 know very little about hockey, but this article seems to be a hoax. I was not able to find any reliable coverage attesting to the existence of this team, let alone its status as a professional outfit. Also, the article is replete with sentences like "Many speculate that the team was actually consisted of played aged 18–29, jacked up on steroids, and placed in the 14-15 division because they couldn't keep up with the adults. Many team members had full grown beards and told stories of their life in the early 1980s.", which have been present since it was initially created. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. The team does seem to exist, however they're a street hockey team, not an ice hockey team. I found a few non-reliable references to them through Google, but no news articles. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above, not to mention the fact that the article is unreferenced, and contains blatant hearsay in the controversies section. All this with no redeeming qualities pretty much screams delete. KaySL (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable. We don't even have an article about the tournament that they keep trying to win. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as either a hoax or a real but non-notable team being hyped up into hoax territory. The external links in this article don't link to anything relevant. It appears that most of the references found on Google to this team are to mirrors of this Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 10 May 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 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 01:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pit Bull[edit]

Pit Bull (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 dispute the need for an article explaining the use of the term ,pit bull, in legislation in the USA. Wikipedia is used by more than just americans. Bullterriers, English Staffords, bull dogs ect, are not classed as pit bulls in Australia, Europe, the UK and various other countries. These countries see Pitbulls as American Pitbulls and have laws specifically controlling or out lawing them specifically not these other breeds as-well. So an article referring to bull and terrier breeds under the US legislative term of Pitbull is confusing and just plain wrong to boot. So surly this should have being considered when writing a topic on the meaning of the term Pitbull. Considering the information is read by more than just americans, so should therefore be relevant to more than just americans as-well. I propose that the discussion on the use of the term Pitbull in US legislation should be a section in a article about American dangerous dog laws or something of the sort, not a whole subject on it own. We have enough trouble with these other breeds being confused with Pitbulls, with out an encyclopedia article referring to them as such. The more common use of the word should be the bulk of an article on the the term Pitbull. Which would be to simply say that it is just a shortened down or slang way of saying, American Pitbull Terrier, which would not need its own article either, only a reference to such on the American pit bull page. This article smears all these other breeds with the pit bull brush when 99% of the articles information refers specifically to the American pit bull terrier. Such sections relating to bite statistics, harm from pitbulls ect. Make it seem that these other breeds are included in the statistics when they actually refer specifically to the American pitbull terrier exclusively. This article just adds to the confusion about these breeds. Say if some one was to read this article trying to find out if an, English Stafford, was a good dog to get. They would finish reading thinking that the are a type of or closely related to the pitbull, when theres actually hundreds of years of difference in breeding between these two breeds. They would think there potentially dangerous which they generally are not. It just makes things to confusing which is exactly the opposite thing an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Thanks of reading and considering my comments. john Evereadyo2 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - malicious nomination by vandalism-only account. Rcawsey (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per previous editor. Miyagawa (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have blocked the creator of the AfD for 24 hours for disruptive editing-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename: I do not see anyting malicious in this AFD, and I do not understand why the AfD notice was removed from the page[14]. Removal of AfD notices before the issue is formally settled is against the guidelines. Please explain. This said, the article is definitely at the wrong title because it is not about pit bulls, a term that is amply explained at the disambiguation page. It should be moved to agressiveness in dogs or something similar.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This AfD has now been formatted correctly, listed at WP:AFD, the AfD link has been reinserted into the article, and the originator of the AfD has been unblocked with an apology.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article should probably be called pit bull legislation and developed into a spinoff of the overgrown (106KB) article breed-specific legislation. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Pit Bull" is such a common term in the U.S. ASPCA uses the term as a catch all. The article does a good job of explaining the meaning and what the term entails.Onefinalstep (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. There is no cogent reason for deletion. Joal Beal (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move - , sections and put them in with relevant articles. Because Pit Bull is a common term only used in the U.S. by the ASPCA ect, as a catch all. Is exactly why this article needs to be changed or renamed. It doesn't represent a world view. Evereadyo2 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -- 1) More than half of the nominator's edits concern this article. About a third of the nominator's edits appear to be canvassing. 2) Deletion or inclusion is based on notability, which is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, which this article appears to have. Maurreen (talk) 01:23, 10 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nearu[edit]

Nearu (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 search for reliable sources has failed to support the subject's notability. Janggeom (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Kateda appears to be the same art, can we include it in this AfD discussion? Astudent0 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'm not aware of Wikipedia policies on trying to include more than one article in a single AfD discussion (i.e., we would have to check to get a firm answer on proper protocol), but in this case the subjects look different enough to me that I would want to consider them separately anyway. Janggeom (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The only sources that I found are what is in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find no independent sources that indicate this art is notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a poorly written article that fails to show the notability of its subject. I can't find independent sources and the art itself fails WP:MANOTE. The article links to Kateda, which seems to be the same art. That article has multiple issues and probably also should be deleted. Astudent0 (talk) 14:53, 11 May 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 speedily deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.O.S.I.[edit]

F.O.S.I. (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 sources, and none likely as it is illegal distribution of software. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've just noticed Category:Warez groups which says that User:R.123/CUNT is a good notability guideline for warez groups. R.123 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since early 2006, and this userpage hasnt been mentioned often, except in some really old AFDs. If this is going to be a specialised notability benchmark, I think we need Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing to develop and endorse it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link completely goes against the notability guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Has no chance of passing WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge with List of warez groups. The site is an internet landmark: I used it ten years ago when I was new to the internet. Due to the nature of the topic, it will be hard to find sources for this. The only source I found: http://filenetworks.blogspot.com/2009/01/fosi-appz-homepage-direct-downloads-of.html A blog specialized in file sharing. Seems to be active as a scene group too for the last 10 years: http://orlydb.com/?q=-fosi. The nfo's are the same. Passing WP:BIO is a not an issue as it is not certain it is currently one person or a group. Seems to me it passes CUNT. A screenshot of the typical look/logo could be added. --Ondertitel (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Zero independent coverage in reliable sources. The article is obviously promotional. Tagged as G11. Pcap ping 05:13, 11 May 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 noted, WP:Crystal applies here. Information is to varue to warrant an article for now. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 01:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love/Affair[edit]

Love/Affair (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. This is an article about an album "set to be released sometime in early 2011." And that's about all the information the article contains. No references, precious little likelihood of finding anything substantial to say about it. WP:CRYSTAL. Shimeru (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (WP:CRYSTAL could well have been written with "released sometime in the future" in mind). TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, way too early for this article to even exist. Nothing reliable to support it; let's concentrate on Love King for now. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL (my PROD notice was removed). -Reconsider! 05:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Crystal Ball and so forth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:36, 10 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra (programing language)[edit]

Sierra (programing language) (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 cannot find any refs to support this. If it exists, it appears to be non-notable. PROD to this effect removed without explanation. I42 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nomination, no evidence of existence. Goodvac (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't say that google is the oracle of existing anything. This language is going through hard process of coming out. Soltysh (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But something is needed in reliable sources to establish notability. I42 (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Interestingly, the reference and external link both point to the same page, and the first line on the page invites us to "Read about Sierra on Wikipedia". TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting what external site are you talking about, I'm looking at either of them and can't find link to wikipedia. Soltysh (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about www.lightningstormsoftware.com. It's gone now, though. Google's cache is from 4 days prior, and has no links, so I guess we can at least deduce that their website is being actively developed ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is the other website, by the way? I've only seen the one I linked to above. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - any programming language even remotely notable would have an entry in http://99-bottles-of-beer.net. This one does not. PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not appear to be notable. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1348474 doesn't count, and I can't find anything else about this. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:22, 14 May 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 Aomori, Aomori. JForget 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukuda Junior High School[edit]

Tsukuda Junior High 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)

no separate notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do. The spree killer link is dead, and if an article is necessary about his schooling, it should be the high school Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article Aomori, Aomori. The school is operated by the City. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education says "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." I'm sorry for creating this short article.--ACSE (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, that is why we are all here, to create and share information. Keep up the good work. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - As per ACSE -- that's exactly the right response. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to the article Aomori, Aomori per usual practice. No WP:BEFORE reasoning from nominator why a merge or redirect is not appropriate. TerriersFan (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have a discussion like this about it than to have decided for myself that it should be redirected, should it in fact turn out to be notable. Hence no mention of merge or redirect from me. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect per above. Chris, you could have tried a bold merge, but no worries. tedder (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdraewn DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yō Takeyama[edit]

Yō Takeyama (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 stated notability Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Does not even assert notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability now seems to have been established thanks to efforts of user Schmidt. --DAJF (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. A7 tagged. Pcap ping 05:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• detagged plenty of ghits for this writer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? Can you find some significant coverage, so he passes WP:AUTHOR? Can you even name a significant work of his? This seems to be his IMDB profile. Pcap ping 10:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes... it is the same person. Look to WP:ANYBIO where his award nominations show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've added to the article the screenplays of Hiroshi Takeyama, (assuming it's the same author), which were nominated but did not win the Award of the Japanese Academy for best screenplay. I still don't think is enough for WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 11:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Look to WP:ANYBIO and consider his nominations for notable awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm willing to wp:agf that Agency for Cultural Affairs prizes are notable, although they don't even have IMDB pages; Weak keep. Pcap ping 02:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (yes, the same fellow)

• Keep and expand the article, which does now assert notability per WP:ANYBIO in that the subject "has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". The Award of the Japanese Academy is quite notable in Japan, and even a nomination is an honor for a screenwriter. Notable in Japan is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Note I've begun expansion and cleanup and have sourced one of the award nominations, but I need lots of help from Japanese-reading Wikipedians to translate these news, book, and general search results. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At first glance, appears to have written some fairly major film scripts, as the award nominations indicate. I'll try to do some work on the article tomorrow before giving my !vote. Dekkappai (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Japanese Wiki indicates he has won a few prizes, including the Hashida Prize for an NHK series (Seizaemon Zanjitsuroku/清左衛門残日録, 1994)[15] and a Geijutsusenjou (芸術選奨) in 2007. As usual with Ja-Wiki, this is not sourced. But I've found Ja-wiki to be usually accurate, and sourceable. Will do what I can tomorrow. Dekkappai (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and he wrote one of Kon Ichikawa's screenplay's. One of Ichikawa's minor works, but still, Ichikawa is a major, world-class director... Dekkappai (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm finding bits in the news such as this one from Yomiuri Shimbun-- It has a photo and brief profile/interview with Takeyama including: "脚本の竹山は、ＮＨＫ大河ドラマ「秀吉」や「利家とまつ」などを担当した人気脚本家。戦争をテーマにした作品も数多く、高倉健主演の映画「ホタル」や、テレビ東京系で放送されたドラマ「赤い月」なども手がけている。" (rough translation: Screenwriter Takeyama is the popular author in charge of such NHK period dramas as Hideyoshi and Toshiie and Matsu. Besides Hotaru starring Ken Takakura, and works broadcast on Tokyo Television, such as "Red Moon", he has written many war-themed works...")[16]... I'm surprised we don't have an article on Hideyoshi[17]-- one of the bigger NHK Taiga dramas, I think. And these are all pretty big events in TV-land in Japan... Anyway, works for major directors, major stars, major studios, interviewed in major paper which calls him a "popular writer"... are we getting "notable" yet? Dekkappai (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 21 pages/207 entries of writing credits at TV-Drama Database?[18].... Dekkappai (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the Writers Guild of Japan site: here[19], a search on "竹山洋" shows that his teleplays have been printed in their "Best of TV" annuals for 1983, 1987, 1994, 2000, 2003, and 2008. The two awards I mentioned above are also confirmed here. Dekkappai (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I make it out: This says the Agency for Cultural Affairs gave Takeyama an award for Sabu, and the Grand Prize for Ten to Sen (「点と線」（芸術祭大賞）竹山洋 / 「SABU～さぶ～」（芸術祭優秀賞）竹山洋). Dekkappai (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom, article is thousandfold improved and shows definite notability. Congratulations to all! --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:38, 14 May 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 Takanawa. And this concerns for all related AFDs - feel free to add up content to the related articles JForget 15:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takamatsu Junior High School[edit]

Takamatsu Junior High 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)

no separate notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do. One minor possibly noteworthy but unsourced claim in location. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to the article Takanawa per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per TerriersFan. tedder (talk) 17:28, 13 May 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 Motomiya, Fukushima (City). JForget 15:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shirasawa Junior High School[edit]

Shirasawa Junior High 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)

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to the article Motomiya, Fukushima (City) per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:24, 10 May 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 Shimotombetsu. JForget 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shimotombetsu Junior High School[edit]

Shimotombetsu Junior High 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)

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to the article Shimotombetsu per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to parent article. WP:N, junior high schools/middle schools aren't inherently notable.--It's me...Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 04:34, 11 May 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 Chūō-ku, Sapporo. JForget 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sapporo Municipal Keimei Junior High School[edit]

Sapporo Municipal Keimei Junior High 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)

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to the article Chūō-ku, Sapporo per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:29, 10 May 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 Kagoshima. JForget 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matsumoto Junior High School[edit]

Matsumoto Junior High 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)

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Give it more time to have information added to it. WikiManOne (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue of time, it's an issue of notability, which this doesn't have. It's nicely done and pleasing to the eye, but it's not notable. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable junior high school. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 20:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Kagoshima per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per TerriersFan, this is a standard outcome of pre-secondary schools with no other claims to notability. tedder (talk) 17:30, 13 May 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South West Side (Denver)[edit]

South West Side (Denver) (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 is purely original research. Although several sources are cited, none of them substantiates the main theme of the article, which is that there is a definable area of Denver known as the South West Side. Article has been tagged as original research for several months. There was some discussion of Denver neighborhoods and areas in User talk:Orlady/Archive 10#North Denver, but no source that I've seen supports the existence of this particular name. Other articles exist for individual neighborhoods, so deletion of this article would not deprive users of verifiable information. Orlady (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion for essentially the same reason:

North Denver, Colorado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

West Denver, Colorado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are a few other articles about areas of Denver that have similar issues, but that I am not nominating at this time because either: (1) the article cite at least one source that sort of supports the existence of an area by that name or (2) I found an area of that name on this map. People more familiar with Denver may, however, want to add some additional articles to this nom. --Orlady (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. 13:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete all. My first reaction was that there might once have been communities by these names that once existed but were later absorbed by Denver or another suburb, but I couldn't find any evidence of this. I agree that North Denver, Colorado and West Denver, Colorado should both be deleted. I checked Geographic Names Information System at http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/ to try to locate any references to current or historical places by either name. Since GNIS also has listings for some schools and hospitals, presumably because these are often included in maps, I found West Denver Preparatory Charter School and Denver West Surgery Center, but nothing for West Denver or North Denver on their own. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all I agree that that these articles are original research. I am very familiar with the Denver Metro area and understand what the original author intended, but there is no documentation of these areas and there are no borders, they are general referenced .Denver uses a neighborhood system to separate areas. The Denver neighborhoods are specific, well documented and have clear geographical borders.Dbkilo (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Denver micro-geography is better addressed in neighborhood articles that have definite borders. These articles are both superfluous and confusing. Vertigo700 (talk) 04:42, 13 May 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 Aoba-ku, Sendai. JForget 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamisugiyama Junior High School[edit]

Kamisugiyama Junior High 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)

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to the article Aoba-ku, Sendai per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:30, 10 May 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 Kadena Air Base. JForget 15:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kadena Middle School[edit]

Kadena Middle 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)

no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to the article Kadena Air Base per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 15:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John McSweeney (martial artist)[edit]

John McSweeney (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The article gives no reason subject is notable and has been tagged for improvement and notability for a year. I don't see how he meets WP:MANOTE. His claim to fame in the article is being one of Ed Parker's black belts, but notability isn't inherited. My searches found mainly non-independent mentions or mentions in connection with Ed Parker. He also wrote an autobiography, but that's obviously not an independent source. Papaursa (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I looked at the first AfD discussion, in which some potential sources were noted, but a brief examination did not show anything substantial, as far as I could see. Janggeom (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in the article shows notability and I couldn't find anything when I searched. I looked at the previous AfD and didn't find anything to show he passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as A7 Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 02:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick bell from arizona[edit]

Patrick bell from arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

no notability or references. from what i can see, this kid created the page out of sheer boredom. :P Qö₮$@37 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Qö₮$@37 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free weekend[edit]

Free weekend (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 cant find any sources relating to this game, perhaps this doesn't even exist? Dwayne was here! ^♫ 02:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a game, it's an expression used about a game.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — (weak) Doesn't seem very notable; very few references. At the very least, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. moɳo 03:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Also, as mono said, not encyclopedic, and adds little value to the encyclopedia. Don't think a transwiki to Wiktionary would work, either. Airplaneman ✈ 05:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very snowy.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HP200A[edit]

HP200A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not particularly notable, no real context of sources to explain this either. —fetch·comms 02:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Yes, the topic is notable. Yes, there are sources. No, the nomination has not followed our deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD, and you find sources, starting with:

:Second (or is it third?) coming of HP

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - ProQuest Archiver - Mar 14, 1993

... equipment That instrument the HP200A was a breakthrough and one :of the first big purchasers was Walt Disney who ordered eight units for :his movieFantasia ...

It helped save the company, and was used to make a notable film. A Google book search shows results as well, one of them mentioning the Disney thing [20] also. Dream Focus 06:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously a notable product, and several google books results provide adequate sourcing to document that notability, as indicated above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]