< 1 November	3 November >

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11 - spamlinks in the text JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving your house in Sydney[edit]

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

Personal essay, likely copyvio, utter drivel. E. Fokker (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOTHOWTO Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did this not get speedied?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Edward321 (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOR ... and probably WP:CRAP did it exist. Ravenswing 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Probably a copyvio, but I can't find a source. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 3 November 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 GOOD Music. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Friday Music Program[edit]

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

GOOD Friday Music does not seem to merit an article of its own. It's not an album; the songs are not charting in any board (except for a few that became singles). Many of these songs are non-notable and can fit in the artist's discography Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Spin Magazine article announcing the launch of the program. That plus 2 refs from MTV.com and a quick search revealing that Rolling Stone, MTV and Spin all also regularly discuss the latest songs being released through the program - makes this seem notable to me. -Addionne (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with GOOD Music. 76.219.170.8 (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While this is notable, the fact that similar programs do not have an entire article seems precedent enough to suggest Good Friday needn't have one. Still it's a notable program and is often referred to. I think it should be merged into GOOD Music too. GavinSimmons (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with GOOD Music. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 02:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with GOOD Music.Jab843 (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIM Software[edit]

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

Probably nn, article has serious editing issues. First page or two of ghits regarding them seem to primarily just be listings/directories/the like. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: initial creator probable SPA: Aimsoft (talk · contribs)) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a provider of reference data management and risk management solutions. Not really a showing of subminimal importance, much less notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total Chaos[edit]

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

The only reliably published (WP:RS) information about this game is a trivial writeup in Retro Gamer magazine [1] - this is an a sidebar in a larger article which doesn't mention the game again. This is insufficient for our notability guidelines (WP:N). I've held off on taking this to AfD because of the hostility I received at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team Chaos, so let me lay down this disclaimer: Yes I have written a similar video game (mine's a Chaos remake). No, this isn't a conflict of interest. My deletion rationale is based on policy. Marasmusine (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the reliable, usable coverage just isn't there for this one --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 5 November 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 to delete Nothing Painted Blue or Franklin Bruno. The albums are a different matter, and little policy-based reason has been given to keep the first two, so I have redirected these. The third, as pointed out below, does have a couple of reviews in good quality sources even if the article itself is a microstub, and so no consensus on this one. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Painted Blue[edit]

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

This indie band that is only sporadically together does not show notability in multiple reliable sources, nor does it contain two or more members of other notable groups (see WP:BAND). I am also nominating the following related pages, as notability there relies on the notability here - and in none of the articles is it established:

-Addionne (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sweet Jeebus! I am pretty sure we can establish notability without much fuss. Both Bruno and Hughes have played with the The Mountain Goats, so I am not sure the nom is correct about WP:BAND. (ETA: As for the individual albums, they can be merged into the Bruno article if not independently notable.)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only a 0PB fan would appreciate that Bruno wrote a Village Voice article in 1997 about the extent of coverage of the band on the web.[2]. I see that the wikipedia articles are currently not well sources, but there are copious sources available with a bit of digging.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I link to a lot of sources lower down in this discussion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BAND says notability can be established if the artist is a member of two or more notable bands. In this case, this article does not assert sufficient notability for Nothing Painted Blue - so the musician, Franklin Bruno, does not meet that criteria. (He does, however, deserve a mention on the The Mountain Goats article). Peter Hughes is not mentioned in the article as a member of this group. The albums by Bruno were released on an indie label and did not get enough press to warrant notability on their own. -Addionne (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hughes is a member of both, e.g.,[3][4].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno apparently has a new album out with Darnielle last month. Lookie here, full NPR piece on it:[5]. Other coverage:[6][7][8][9]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All The Eskimo (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Can you not read?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the GNG resoundingly.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a practical joke, right? You guys have never heard of Franklin Bruno?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding any convincing sources which would help these articles pass WP:BAND, WP:NALBUMS, or WP:GNG. Just because Milowent is intimately familiar with the band and its members doesn't mean they are notable. The sources Milowent has provided above are not primarily about Nothing Painted Blue or Franklin Bruno, they are about John Darnielle and his new album. They don't provide significant coverage of the band/musician/album being discussed here. SnottyWong ^chat 23:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, that new album is not a John Darnielle album, its an Extra Lens album, which is Darnielle and Bruno together, was that not obvious? I only cited those sources to illustrate a slew of coverage related to Bruno in just the last 30 days. I did not provide sources about 0PB or Bruno's solo work in that comment, but responding to the nominator's incorrect statements about who is in OPB and their connections to The Mountain Goats.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither this article, nor the Mountain Goats article list Bruno as a member - but rather as a collaborator for two of their albums. Most articles say that the band primarily consists of Darnielle solo. The discography article says live performances commonly comprise only Darnielle backed by Peter Hughes on bass guitar.

I didn't say I considered Bruno to be a member, though he is listed as a "former member" in the Mountain Goats navigational template, so clearly at least some editors think he was. (I wouldn't really think of Jon Wurster as a Mountain Goat either, but he's apparently considered a current member. That's my Superchunk bias though.) I do think of him as a noted collaborator with Darnielle on Mountain Goats work.[10][11][12] (Washington Post, "Two of indie rock's finest storytellers John Darnielle Mountain Goats and Franklin Bruno team up..."); or as the Norwegian Dagbladet said, Bruno is "viktige støttespillere" (a key contributor)[13]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: Yes, I can read; no, I've never heard of Franklin Bruno (or, indeed, of any other band or performer mentioned in this kerfluffle); no, I don't feel there's anything innately humorous or relevant to AfD discussions about either fact. Milowent's impassioned arguments notwithstanding, I'm not seeing a whole lot of there, there. Milowent, you are of course aware that meeting GNG - and, therefore, WP:BAND/MUSIC as well - requires that sources "address the subject directly in detail." Sources that mention the subject in passing do not count. Period. Bruno authoring a newspaper article does not count. Reviews that mention Bruno or Nothing Painted Blue in passing do not count. Nor does the GNG give a pass to people who accumulate a number of such sources; six trivial mentions (or sixty, come to that) have exactly the same weight as one ... zero. You need to come up with - and should know you need to come up with - multiple reliable sources which discuss Bruno, Nothing Painted Blue or these albums in significant detail. Anything else is a waste of our time. Ravenswing 16:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources out there, some of which I added bare URLs of to the articles in the last 24 hours. I agree that the articles as nominated did not clearly demonstrate notability, but Bruno and Nothing Painted Blue are notable. The sources, such as the bare URLs I already added, go far beyond trivial mentions and include album reviews in places like Spin[14] and CMJ[15][16][17] (leading hard copy music publications in the US), Pitchfork[18][19] and PopMatters[20][21] (leading online music publications), and elsewhere[22][23][24] (have to search this one but multiple excerpts appear)[25] (scroll down to opb section). I never suggested that Bruno authoring a newspaper article counts for notability, I just found it amusing. There's no question that even in the last month his position as 1/2 of the Extra Lens has also received broad coverage [26][27][28][29][30]. Bruno's 2002 compilation with Jenny Toomey also received significant coverage.[31][32].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the sources noted above were apparently not looked at by any of the prior !voters.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the original voters appear to have come back to view these sources I cited.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all based on Milowent's findings. If Spin magazine and others review an album, its notable. Ample coverage for all these things. Dream Focus 09:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Franklin Bruno is notable enough that other artists have released cover albums. http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/8106-tempting-jenny-toomey-sings-the-songs-of-franklin-bruno/ - Jenny Toomey is certainly considered a notible musician by Wikipedia's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.2.19 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing Painted Blue and Franklin Bruno. Milowent's sources look like enough to establish notability for those two at least. Delete or redirect the three albums as the coverage is far lighter for them. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I checked out A Cat May Look at a Queen and had not the slightest difficulty finding a couple of good detailed reviews to cite. The material is clearly notable and so there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 9 November 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 by User:Athaenara under criteria G7, author requests deletion. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Ian Millar[edit]

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

redirect done in error Mayumashu (talk) 19:02, 2 November 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. Whilst the redirect to the proposed band article is fine, the article still doesn't exist - so the obvious thing to do appears to be to delete this, and then re-instate it when the band article is written. If someone pings me when that happens, please? Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japoñol[edit]

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

unreferenced nn neologism Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris--I did a little bit of sourcing. I will not dispute that the neologism is non-notable--but I propose I write a stubby stub for the band, which is notable enough (though not overwhelmingly so) and leaving this term as a redirect. Sources for japonol are found only in connection to this band; it's not an implausible redirect. Let me know what you think (on my talk, if you can). Drmies (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me, please have fun!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the above. If the term is associated with a notable subject, and has no other notable content, then a redirect is appropriate. You might also consider a redirect from the unaccented version, for ease of search. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep ; Nominator changed his opinion to keep and the only delete !vote was withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1906 Auburn Tigers football team[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am trying to help in ending the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. This article has been tagged as Unreferenced for four years. It is time to challenge and remove the contents, which may or may not be spurious, inasmuch as there is no Source to be checked out. The article was previously saved on the supposition that somebody would step forward and supply the References. That has not happened. Here is the link: 1906 Auburn Tigers football team. Sincerely, and with best wishes to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Perhaps we could get someone from WikiProject Alabama or WikiProject College Football to try and do some research on this team. I think that it meets notability standards, but the referencing, like you said, is obviously the problem. Just a thought. I however really cant say keep or delete just yet, there is still hope. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 21:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If it has sat dormant without refs for that long, then get rid of it and every other article that exists without refs for more than a year. Keep now that a Ref has been added. I applaud the nominator in being bold with this nomination, resulting in an improvement to the 'pedia without losing an article. The Eskimo (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Auburn Media Guide is right here; p.184 has the scores. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The more easily viewable 2008 media guide confirms the schedule and scores. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Some nice editor has furnished the reference. Funny what a threatened Delete will do. And now I will move on to another article. Just a few thousand more to go from October 2006. Anybody care to help? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep Article is properly sourced and clearly notable. No question to keep. HeartSWild (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have left a note on the talk page of the one delete !voter asking him/her to reconsider. If the !vote is withdrawn and no further delete !votes come along, I will NAC this as withdrawn. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IBOLT[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable enterprise application integration (EAI) and business process management (BPM) software product. The references supplied are either to usual suspects like Gartner "magic quadrants", analyst reports that do not confer notability; to internal sites, announcements, versions, and announcements of routine transactions, none of which are truly independent of the subject; or are not about this product specifically. I found a lot of press releases, but nothing that read like it was neutral and independent, in news searches. Contested proposed deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Yworo (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 17:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article, non-notable per nom. SnottyWong ^chatter 17:48, 2 November 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. Davewild (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Maria Fernandez[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Claim to notability is that he's married to someone famous. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable only for marriage to a celebrity. SnottyWong ^yak 17:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article provides little more information than how he is related to other people. It is therefore, not significant enough to be encyclopedic. Morgankevinj(talk) 17:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Notability is not conferred in this manner. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:38, 8 November 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet either the general notability guideline or the subject specific guideline Davewild (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Eikrem[edit]

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

This was originally part of a multi-nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Dudgeon which I closed as "delete". However, I felt that there was enough doubt about whether or not Magnus Eikrem should be deleted that the issue of his notability should be considered in a separate nomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he has never appeared in a fully-professional league or cup game for his club, or a senior, official international game for his country) and WP:GNG (references are just run-of-the-mill transfer news, match reports etc.) Giant Snowman 17:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. SnottyWong ^squeal 17:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references given do not meet the test of substantial, in depth coverage of WP:GNG. He does not meet the WP:ATHLETE guidelines either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable since Eikrem is reserves team captain. Velociraptor888 20:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that make him notable??? Name another "reserve team captain". Many leagues don't even have official reserve teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but I just can't see how being captain of someone's reserves can be seen as a claim of inherent notability, even if it is Man U -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS criteria, done nothing of particular note. I don't think a profile, couple of run-of-the-mill "kid signs a contract" articles and a few friendly and reserve game match reports - particularly when they are from his cub's own website - count as in depth coverage in reliable sources enough to etch his name in to the enduring annals of history--ClubOranje^T 11:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that failing WP:ATHLETE is not sufficient to delete the article - it must be established as also failing the GNG. [33] [34] are sufficient in and of themselves, and other articles linked have substantial comments on the player. Saying that match reports do not establish notability of a sports player is like saying concert reviews do not establish notability of a musician. 96.39.62.90 (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tribal Football is not a reliable source. I don't think one report in a local newspaper (MEN) qualifies as substantial in depth coverage. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are many more articles that are not needed, it is best to get the most reliable source not the most various. --86.166.100.242 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Call up to the Norwegian under 21's shows he has attention "just not" in Manchester. Also numerous times on the bench prove that he is a part of the united squad. He would also had gone on loan had he not been deemed "too good enough"--86.166.100.242 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "He would also had gone on loan had he not been deemed "too good enough"" = original research. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Solskjaer himself said it himself in a interview. Go and find it if you don't believe me((it was better for him to stay then go out on loan)).--86.166.100.242 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found the link [[35]]--86.166.100.242 (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The source you give says that he didn't go on loan because there was no guarantee that Eikrem would play for the club he would be loaned to, not because Manchester United intend to use him in a first team game. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I never claimed that was the case? --86.161.217.212 (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and coverage is little more than trivial mentions in match reports. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ATHLETE. Simply has not played a first team professional match yet. To ignore WP:ATHLETE we need sufficient evidence that he is well-known and I don't see that. —Half Price 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many appearances on the bench make it clear he is in the first team picture as well as a senior squad number. failing WP:ATHLETE is not a problem because anyone clued up about reserve team football in England knows who he is. Also the fact that all the sources are "legit" and cannot be called into question in anyway.--MagnusWolfEikrem (talk) 20:32, 9 November 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. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Carney[edit]

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

No significant coverage to confirm she meets general notability criteria. The television roles have not been significant and she does not appear to meet WP:ENT at this time. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding any reliable sources which establish notability, although her name is somewhat common so searching is not straightforward. Not finding any hits for "Liz Carney actress". SnottyWong ^babble 17:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also had this issue, the sources that were the most 'reliable' were for a journalist with the same name. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the searches mentioned above, I tried "Liz Carney Emmerdale" and "Liz Carney Grange Hill" and found nothing beyond directory listings. Seems like a clear failure of WP:ENT. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 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. Davewild (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludmila Foblová[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Young artist/architect doesn't quite satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST at this time. SnottyWong ^speak 18:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't notice any evidence for a claim that she's an architect. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity page, inadequate documentation of notability. TheMindsEye (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. How is this a "vanity page"? (My own impression is that it's no more and no less a "vanity page" than Jiří Růžek is.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both "WP:CREATIVE" and "WP:ARTIST" are invoked above. They're two names for the same thing. If this (not these) were rigorously applied, a very large number of biographies that are clearly not vanity -- the biographee is long dead, and was obviously not known to the biographer(s) -- would have to be deleted. Unless, that is, the weasel word significant were interpreted maganimously. Has Foblová's work "won significant critical attention"? Well, it's written up. (Inconveniently for me, in a language I happen not to be able to read.) Are the write-ups "significant"? I suspect that they tend to be if you like her work and they tend not to be if you don't. Her work doesn't interest me but I hope and try to be fair; perhaps somebody whose ability in Czech is sufficient not only to babelfish just what is said but to gauge the significance of its being said where it's said can contribute here. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources I found refer to her participation in the contest of the magazine Reflex (Akty X is a competiton for their readers - amateur photographers). I'm quite familiar with the Czech photography as an "art genre". I don't think this person is a notable photographer in the Czech Rep. and I don't think she meets the notability criteria here on Wikipedia. The sources are either trivial or not independent. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Btw, thanks for delsort, Hoary. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, delete, and my thanks to Vejvančický for the explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, if she doesnt meet the notability criteria, then delete, but my opinion is that any 15 or 20 years sportsman winning any championship is ok, but artist not. The L'Esprit Photo was a contest with thousands authors from the whole world, so its winner --for me-- is very similar to any sports championship winners. My opinion is that in next months someone else will write the same article... btw Akty X contest included "also" amateurs, not only, as Vejvančický says, there have been also professionals or semi-professionals, like Lukas Dvorak, Jan Hronsky, Jiri Ruzek, Boris Guljajev, Ivan Mladenov, Martin Iman and many others ... Croniquelle (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the winner was Tom Ford, Foblová received 1st prize (high range DSLR camera with lens) for the photo called "Dishwasher" (btw, with the same work she has won one of the categories of Akty X.[36] L'Esprit Photo is a competiton focused on "portraits and nude photographs of women" ... "encouraging a developing public interest in Polish art photography".[37] I can't upload their official website and review the importance of this contest, however, I stay with my comment (mentioned above). I don't think this person is particularly notable in the context of the Czech (or world) art photography. The sources are trivial, basically we can say that she is marginally known for creating one good photo: "Dishwasher". It isn't enough. Just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI (excuse me, your information is again shallow and not correct, and we are not here to judge if someone's work is good or bad, just the sources and these are clear for me), I see this: L'esprit Photo - 1st place - Foblova, CZ (for Dishwasher), 2nd place - Cotae, Romania, 3rd place - Pak, Russia and Grand Prix - Ford, USA. Other authors from China, Singapur, Australia etc... [38]. Akty X - 3rd place with Mora 218 (not Dishwasher, as you say, I see two different photos probably from the same series), the Editor-In-Chief Award with Teeth Whitening.[39]. As I have said before - delete, if doesnt meet notability criteria, keep, if you agree with me that the sources are the same value as any long jump medal winner, who --I think-- is the same marginally known, but is still the winner Croniquelle (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I apologize, the photos - or at least the theme - ("Dishwasher" and "Mora 218") are almost identical, you can compare here. As for the sources presented here or in the article, they contain only passing mentions about the subject. I'm not sure with the significance of the mentioned photo competitions, there's plenty of similar contests all over the world. Reflex gives a lot of publicity to the Akty X competition, but there isn't any coverage outside of the magazine. I don't consider their information as independent, and moreover, the info on individual awarded photographers is not substantial, Foblová is barely mentioned as one of the awarded. The same applies for L'Esprit Photo. The comparison with a long jump medal winner is a bit misleading: I would compare Foblová to a long jump medal winner in obscure tournaments. Of course, my opinion is subjective and I have no intention to destroy your hard work. I just don't think Foblová meets the notability criteria for photographers. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I think I've said everything before... according to other names competiting in these contests I dont think they are any obscure tournaments. What does determine the importance of any contest if not the quality and the names of its competitors? But ok, let's say it is too soon. The article shouldn't be any advertisement, just an information and even if she started very quickly and many other people could envy so fast and big success, I say that she, as the same as those guys described above, belong to the most significant persons of the new wave of Czech nude photography (there is not only Saudek and Vano) and at least half of them already is or will be an important part of Czech culture. Croniquelle (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HarmonySEQ[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, the article is written by the author of the software. The only source is its webpage, which is only a wordpress page, I can't find any coverage at all online beyond promotional material. Terrillja _talk 16:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSOFT. SnottyWong ^confess 18:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Textrous[edit]

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

Dictionary definition for a non-notable neologism. Neither Google nor Dictionary.com have a dictionary entry for "textrous". No google hits on the term. This may even be appropriate for a speedy delete G3. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 16:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word appears in a variety of contexts in Google Books, but more appropriate for Wictionary. Cullen328 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 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. Courcelles 00:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Cisa[edit]

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

Can't see any notability here [40]. She's a model? Scott Mac 16:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMODEL, poorly sourced BLP. SnottyWong ^express 18:08, 2 November 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. Nom withdrawn. I will help create List of fighter aircraft 2.0. Marcus Qwertyus 16:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fighter aircraft[edit]

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

The question was raised at Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II#Fifth generation ? whether the grouping fighters jets by generation was a legitimate comparison. Grouping articles by category such as Category:International fighter aircraft 2000-2009 etc. seems to be the better alternative. In any case the original research needs to go. Marcus Qwertyus 16:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to start that my full proposal is to get rid of this manual list (and all listings of fighters by whatever "generations" might be) and rely on the automatically generated by-decade fighter category pages. Hcobb (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while I agree that the "generations" concept seems to be a marketing ploy by the manufacturers, I don't think it necessarily qualifies as OR to define an aircraft as a member of one particular generation, especially since it seems the majority of entries have a reference. That said, I would prefer to see the list remove that organization scheme, since it's not particularly usefule and leads to the infamous Apple v. Orange comparison; I would favor a tabled list that can sort through names/designations, dates, manufacturers, and countries of origin (which would, for one, invalidate the "duplicates category" argument). I'd even be willing to put in the gruntwork if the nominator withdraws (just drop me a note). bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs cleanup, not deletion. I would also favor a tabular format that isn't grouped by nebulous "generation". SnottyWong ^communicate 18:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The argument seems to be more over the term "generation" and how the planes are grouped. If there is consensus on how the aircraft should be grouped then I believe the page should be altered, but definitely not deleted. -Nem1yan (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, the article needs cleaning up and verifying, that is obvious. But I think this is a useful list; just because it is in a poor state does not necessarily mean it needs deleting. wacky wace 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The controversy seems to be about the "generation" concept, not the article itself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the list to excise the excessive in-article lists in Fighter Aircraft. I'm not a big fan of the "generation" concept, but I maintained it when I created the list because I was moving an existing list rather than creating a new one. It's obvious that this kind of list is appropriate, though obviously it could be categorized differently if the "generation" thing isn't a good idea. SDY (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems a very viable list and any problems with its current structure should be resolved through regular editing and discussion. I note that there hasn't been any discussion of this on the article's talk page, which would be a good place to start. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone is interested in improving the article, please see Talk:List of fighter aircraft#Proposed reformat of article. Thanks. SnottyWong ^chat 21:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But sort per decade not per generation.Nicob1984 (talk) 12:43, 5 November 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. Davewild (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mickle manoeuvre[edit]

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

Contested PROD, concern was: WP:MADEUP, likely WP:NEO. The only reference doesn't really explain it and Wikipedia is not for things that you came up with today. Terrillja _talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no evidence through Google that the term actually exists.Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no sources for verification. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not found any reliable sources that show existence, let alone notability of this subject. Edward321 (talk) 04:35, 5 November 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. CopyVio Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Record of Employment[edit]

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

Similar article, Record of employment on the web was deleted speedily. Not sure this qualifies as speedy. Reasons for AfD include absolute lack of sources, lack of importance to a general audience, no indication that it is significant, and written in a how-to tone. There is little or nothing in this article that is encyclopedic. — Timneu22 · talk 16:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 as copyright infringement of the the one reference it manages to offer. Tagged as such. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angelika Vee[edit]

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

Random YouTube celebrity. An MTV forum posting is not sufficient demonstration of notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you read the article it seems like it's been used to promote this person. The tone of the article doesn't seem neutral. "Angelika posted a new song 'Guale' which she wrote herself and co-produced the song with Vanotek and Sorin. The song on-line this summer which created a mega buzz which lead to the song being played on Major radio stations around Europe. Angelika did a lot of interviews around the time to promote the single," this doesn't have the proper encyclopedic tone. It again sounds so promotional. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, original draft of article said the book hadn't been written yet, "one author doesn't want his name revealed", obvious WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben: The Book[edit]

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

Non-notable book. No indication that this book or its authors are in any way notable, or that the book or its authors even exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:27, 2 November 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. While the discussion is split, it is clear that the current article is inadequate but that there is potential for one here. Will tag for expanding. Davewild (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Woman (poem)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual poem, no sources. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability, no sources. The only thing this article says about the poem is that it exists. JIP | Talk 06:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided to show that this poem is particularly notable. Travelbird (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about looking at these 1060 scholarly papers and these 3,750 books before coming to a conclusion about whether this is notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep famous poem, very widely anthologized, which is a valid criterion. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Bridger and DGG note, this is a famous and widely republished poem in anthologies. The stub article, to be sure, is a masterpiece of understatement, giving no suggestion of its notability and including no sources. The notability of the subject, however, is unquestionable. Mandsford 17:56, 2 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay Sheel Saxena[edit]

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

This is an article on a non-notable person. No reliable sources were ever provided in the history of the article--the supposed article from the Hindustan Times does not show up for me, and hits in Google News are zero, except for the press release that User:Aapkikismat keeps adding. Clicking through the provided links also reveals that--well, consider the name Aapkikismat and then follow this link, listed under the references as "autobiography." The article presents a blatant COI, is basically an autobiography, in one of its incarnations was basically spam--but none of these things are reasons for deletion in their own right, I know. However, the burden of notability is not met: the article should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 16:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure the seer must've seen this coming. There's nothing in terms of notability per reliable sources for us to keep this article here. I love that the reference to his successful prediction, is not actually coverage of the prediction but the incident! —SpacemanSpiff 08:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "references" are a press release, the same press release reproduced, a self-promotional article by the subject of the article, and a dead link. The article is still essentially spam, even in its present toned-down version, and there is no evidence anywhere that I can find of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:52, 8 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band, may be WP:CSD but unclear if they may have some TV and radio play. No released albums and no google hits. Triwbe (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 11:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Hi sir, the band has indeed played for television here in Cebu City, Philippines, and radio here in NU 107 FM Cebu... You can see their episodes uploaded in Youtube.com/RealCebuTV. They were also featured in a paper, Sun.Star Cebu, last Oct. 4, 2010. I hope you don't delete the page sir. Peanutbutterdimsumstyle (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)peanutbutterdimsumstyle[reply]
Delete No references to back up claims - and not much claimed anyway. Try again when (if) the album is a hit. Peridon (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sir, references added to establish: band's existence, notability and quick rise in the local community scene in the span of a short time frame, and other pertinent information for verification purposes. Hope the page stays sir, thanks Peanutbutterdimsumstyle (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)peanutbutterdimsumstyle[reply]

Keep; updates made after the onset of AFD clearly and sourcedly show notability. TJRC (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:49, 2 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacroData NetDrive[edit]

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

Unremarkable software product (fails WP:GNG). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was created as the worst kind of paid promotional editing by User:Dalzzun. It was proposed for deletion and deleted, but restored at the request of a new user User:Terranbin, who stated "You deleted a page I created: MacroData NetDrive". Someone may also wanted to look into the socks User:Platinum111, User:Dudtls, and the IP User:190.80.12.137. Just saying... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete and salt. This is software that apparently allows you to use an FTP connection as a virtual drive. No showing that this product has any sort of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is almost the only way to clarify the difference between it and a other two homonymous programs that come from different companies. I wouldn't want to confuse this one with the Novell one.--155.41.197.108 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:44, 4 November 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 Withdrawn And I'll say it again... funny how no one can ever be arsed to clean up poor articles unless I send them to AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hull's Drive In[edit]

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

One source directly about the drive-in, another that vaguely mentions it. All other sources found were incidental local coverage (e.g. local coverage of events/movies there). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 11:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources added. I believe the MSNBC, LA Times, Washington Post, Roanoker, and Southern Spaces citations go towards notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would agree. MSNBC and the Los Angeles Times aren't precisely local sources. Ravenswing 16:31, 3 November 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 Air Florida. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Florida Airlines[edit]

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

Since its creation in 2005, this article does not cite any references or sources. I tried to find some, but was not successful. Therefore, this company fails at least WP:CORP (no significant third party coverage). What is more, as the airline allegedly only operated one small Cessna aircraft, its encyclopedic importance should be very low. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Air Florida, per nomination. I was unable to verify the existence of a Cessna operator with this name using Google, and even if it were verifiable, a small company operating a single small aircraft is not a notable airline. All the hits I found for "Air Florida Airlines" refer to the defunct Air Florida, this includes documents like NTSB reports, so I reckon that this is a plausible title which should be redirected to the larger airline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable airline with a single 14-passenger Cessna, whose name is easily confused with the very notable Air Florida which had a fleet of 33 jets, including DC-10s, and Boeing 707s, 727s and 737s, including the 737 that crashed into the 14th Street Bridge in Washington DC. At its height, the article was sourced to a website that no longer operates. Mandsford 18:11, 2 November 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devdas (2010 film)[edit]

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

Not Not as per WP:NF and WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film article apears to meet WP:NF and WP:GNG, as multiple available sources speak toward the film directly and in deatil. Yes, the article needs more sourcing... but they are found with a search.[41] No need to delete what is fixable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please go to the search result and open it each. No one is about this film.Thanks.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 05:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can withdraw the "keep" temporarily... no problem. As the Devdas theme is popular theme in Indian music and films, and since the film has had some 13 predecessors in multiple languages, searches are dificult... yes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for second relisting: No comments during first relisting period. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nemacon[edit]

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

Once-off animé convention, no reliable sources and more than half of the refs are dead links. Doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding anything in the way of coverage by reliable, third-party source. So it fails WP:NOTE and WP:ORG. —Farix (t | c) 14:41, 7 November 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. Courcelles 00:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AniMatsuri (Estonia)[edit]

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

No third-party sources; only references are either to forums or to the convention's own website. Google search throws nothing up. In summary, the event does not appear to be sufficiently notable. Attendance is sub-300. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find anything in the form of reliable, third-party sources, though being an Estonian convention, sources may not be forthcoming as with conventions in the US or other Anglophone countries. If kept, would recommend being renamed to AniMatsuri as there is no need for disambiguation. Note that attendance is not a benchmark or criteria for notability, or lack thereof. —Farix (t | c) 14:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheFarix's reasoning. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:33, 7 November 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. Courcelles 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Effiong[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 10:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maltese football is semi-pro. He, therefore, fails WP:ATHLETE, and there is sufficient coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:07, 2 November 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. Courcelles 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pac is Back[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Not complete, and little coverage. The only source cited in the article does not establish notability, and appears to be essentially PR material. The article was PRODDED with the reason given as "Unfinished cartoon (not WP:CRYSTAL), and no evidence of notability." This PROD was seconded by another editor, who wrote "Very little verifiable non-PR content to warrant an article. No evidence that title of article is actual working name of show." The PROD was removed with no explanation by an anonymous IP with no edits not related to this article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom / prod. Once the ghosts actually escape and make another attempt at global domination, that may create some coverage.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; there is very little, if any, evidence of notability; a press release doesn't quite cut it. If the show is released and becomes popular enough to generate non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, it can be recreated. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to get it speedied first, "this is an unreleased (unfinished, even) game or cartoon (uncertain) with no reliable referencing or indication of notability. Fails WP:CRYSTAL." I stand by that still. I thought Pacman was a little blob that raced round mazes, in the days when interactive meant you could bat things from one end of the screen to the other... Peridon (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, but it's unfortunate that an anonymous IP removed the prod. Deletion at AfD means that it can't be reintroduced until the concerns have been addressed however, so if this discussion results in delete we can be done with it for now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS to support WP:GNG for inclusion … a press release does not cut it. Happy Editing! — 70.21.16.94 (talk · contribs) _{15:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete per my PROD endorsement. There is little to no information out there other than this press release; that single item in itself is not sufficient WP:RS for creating an article. Ultimately this looks to be a WP:CRYSTAL issue. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD nomination. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 4 November 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. Davewild (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adoi[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all. (Note: The article has been created and deleted five times under the title "Adoi Magazine" and then salted. It was then created a sixth time under the title "Adoi". This article was PRODDED, with the reason given as "NN magazine. No independent sources cited. Ghits are all self-references or social networks". This PROD was then removed by the author of the article without any explanation.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 2 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shotski[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability, and no sources. (The article was previously deleted via a PROD, the PROD reason being given as "After removing the completely unsourced information, this article is simply a neologistic(?) stub at best. Not even sure this deserves an article. There are hundred of drinking rituals in each culture that are not newsworthy or noteworthy". It has been PRODDED again, and the PROD removed with edit summary "-prod, already deleted once per prod, please send to AfD".) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As new word in some currency, but no sign of notability for the concept. (I declined the second deletion per prod). --Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. -- œ ^™ 14:36, 6 November 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. Courcelles 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lowy Institute New Voices participants[edit]

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

This article is a list of mainly non-notable attendees of what, based on a Google search doesn't appear to be a particularly notable conference. The conference attendees are, according to the Lowy Institute's website "early-career people from a wide range of relevant backgrounds" and hence not notable (with a few exceptions). As such, this article fails WP:N and there may be BLP issues given the assumption of a right to privacy. Please note that this was a contested prod with an IP editor removing the prod template and then working on the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't seem notable to me. Additionally, I don't think it satisfies the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources (all the sources are from the organisation itself). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've been able to find, the organisation itself doesn't list the attendees to these conferences on its website. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: poor referencing, no notability, and doesn't even seem encyclopedic (if the conference isn't good enough for an article, why would a list of attendees be?). bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot prove that the editor was someone from the Lowy Institute but sure looks that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - editor is not from the organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.201.140 (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC) — 144.132.201.140 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

really? then why the strong interest in this article? in any case you fail to give any reason for actually keeping this article. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 11:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no demonstration of notability. suspicious single purpose editing. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor may be one of the people involved with these conferences editing in good faith; I don't think that there's anything suspicious. The Lowry Institute is pretty respectable and good at promoting itself through the mainstream media in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 8 November 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. Davewild (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoel Kennedy[edit]

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

Very weak notability. Now the editor claims to own the uploaded photos and so admits it is an Wikipedia:Autobiography. Very few sources found. No awards or other notable work. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Triwbe (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Nakon 07:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Now the editor claims to own the uploaded photos: Where? (Diff?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply look at the photo summary on the page e.g. File:Lesliejordanzoelkennedy.jpg --Triwbe (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. Me, I'd ask about the connection before announcing what is indeed the simplest inference. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this isn't an autobiography, I can't see any sign of notability in either the everyday or the odd Wikipedia sense. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Ward[edit]

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

Questionable notability (see WP:MUSIC), the only third-party reference is this, which seems to be some kind of blog. Previously proposed for deletion, which an unregistered user removed - original reason for deletion was "very few sources, little notability outside of YouTube", which was disputed as follows: "he has made appearances on local radio stations and also, his most popular video has around 10 million views. He may not be known outside of Youtube, which is extremely huge". - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a high number of YouTube hits means nothing if there's no other assertation of notability. No reliable sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 11:56, 2 November 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 a reasonably common name, a redirect is probably not a good idea here; the article can always be resurrected if Jarvis does attain any notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Jarvis[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician who lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Mkativerata (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that the article was created and heavily edited by the COI account User:Bvjarvis1. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An autobiography of a city council member with no other claim to notability. Mayors are usually assumed to be notable but not council members. Cullen328 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beavercreek, Ohio#Local government. He's vice mayor, so if he ever becomes mayor at least we'll still have this material saved in History. Flatterworld (talk) 20:32, 4 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Whole Truth (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Notable author does not mean notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seriously, we have WP:BEFORE for a reason. Google News.--Michig (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several independent reviews in a few seconds. Meets notability standard for books. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not a Serial Killer[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book meets WP:BK because it has multiple independent reviews. Please check for notability before proposing AfD. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, four words aren't enough. They won't convince people that the article's problems don't seem to be fixable with reasonable effort, explain what attempts failed or weren't possible, or justify outright deletion over expansion, merging, or any of the less extreme (and certainly more polite) solutions

Everyone else, I'm not familiar with our standards for books, nor with the common ways to search for sources. Can you check the situation? I'll put in a Keep since at the very least, this can be merged to the author's article. --Kiz o r 19:54, 6 November 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. Davewild (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Race (novel)[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Plenty of coverage exists (Google News). Please follow WP:BEFORE in future.--Michig (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many independent reviews online. Notable per WP:BK

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

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

The result was redirect to The Princess Diaries. Uncle G is correct in that this is the incorrect venue for this, but on the other hand WP:CCC is valid (the previous AfD was 10 months ago), so redirecting seems to be the obvious result here. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genovia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It's all very well it decide to merge this into another article, but if no-one is going to do so, then the article needs to be deleted. St Anselm (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Princess Diaries with no merge. The content of this article (mostly in-universe fictional descriptions) can be left in the history for editors to merge later on if they choose to do so. (If they do plan to merge the content, it would be advisable to cite where in the novels these pieces of information came from.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm … no. If a merger is needed, and a merger doesn't happen, then a merger is still what is needed, not deletion. Ironically, you could have done the merger in two edits, whereas it took you three edits just to perform this AFD nomination. And if you start arguing the point here, that it's Not Your Problem to do a merger even though you want it done and ((sofixit)) applies, that will rise to four edits versus two … Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, consensus can change. In fact, if it is merged it would required a (very) selective paste merger. But I am suggesting that the fact that no one has done it indicates that the community doesn't want it merged, and that the consensus has probably changed to delete. St Anselm (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Selective paste or not, that's still only two edits. You're now up to four on this alternative path that you've chosen instead of simply doing an outstanding task that you wanted to be done that you possessed the tool for doing. Care to waste another one? Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because you don't understand what I'm saying. I don't want it merged. I want it deleted. That's why I nominated it. That's why we're having this discussion. St Anselm (talk) 21:56, 5 November 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. There does appear to be sufficient coverage to establish notability here, Editing issues can be addressed elsewhere and do not require deletion Davewild (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belen Echandia[edit]

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

Moving from speedy queue. Quarl ^(talk) 04:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies GNG based on reading over some of the GNews and GBooks hits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: But needs some more reliable sources. --Monterey Bay (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was fully written by user Parafianowicz, someone who openly admits a compelling bias to the company concerned and is therefore ill suited to write this article. This page has been deleted 3 timed so far because of this COI. One needs only to perform a quick search of the user forums related to handbag companies to see the strong disconnect between the words of this article and customer feeling. For example see the quality control tread here http://forum.purseblog.com/belen-echandia/post-customer-service-quality-control-concerns-here-539747.html which now runs to 188 posts. There is not a single mention of quality control issues in the article, nor anything critical at all. This page is written as an advert not an article. Also this company is likely too small to be of general interest anyway, it can't have more than 10 employees. 80.68.88.178 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 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. Courcelles 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Guides of the Raëlian Movement[edit]

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

Essentially a list page pertaining to WP:BLPs, with poor sourcing, cites to primary sources directly affiliated with the subject (Raelism) and no significant content discussion whatsoever. -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't think there's a BLP problem of sourcing since all of these are sourceable. There is however a general problem that a) most of these people have not accepted their awards and b) It isn't at all clear that these awards are substantially notable in any way. While the presence of third party sources about the topic suggests that they might be, the mentions are either tabloids (including the National Enquirer) or passing mentions. The vast majority are sourced solely to "Raelian Contact" which is simply not enough for any sort of claim of notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - 34 of the 40 cites are primary to Raelian org. BLP issue is of unrequited association. A living person asks not for the award, did not want the award and did not go and pick it up. The award seems nothing more than self promotion by associating your organization with notable people whether they want it or not, which is ok when it is a mainstream notable award, like the oscars for example but has BLP issues when it is a fringe religion self promotional award that it is fair to say many living people may well not want associating with. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing the BLP issue here. The article is neutral and verifiable. The only BLP issue would be if we led the reader to the mistaken belief that these people had chosen to associate with the Raëlian Movement in some way. That's easily sorted by clear wording. If we were to put the individuals in a category, I'd have a problem. As it stands the article is fair and factual. Is is it notable? That's a good question.--Scott Mac 15:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pretty clearly a non-notable award. Mangoe (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any real evidence of notability, only coverage by the, um, whatever it is itself and a little bit of yellow-press style entertainment reporting about specific instances. In addition, I can see the BLP concern. Personally I would be very much concerned for my reputation if I occurred in this list and would not be happy about Wikipedia popularising such an awkward fact that has not been widely reported. I guess the difference between me and others here is that it's not clear to me that the list only includes persons who have accepted this title. Hans Adler 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
deleteNon notable award that most of the recpiants do not appear not even want.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there seems to be little if any substantial coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam cloaked as a list of famous people who mostly don't want to belong to a cult. BLP stalking concerns. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes the award is fairly minor. But it has been mentioned in several reliable sources. Far more trivial things, with less media mention, have articles. I'm counting 6 5 (one was a dead link) secondary sources, including the San Francisco Chronicle and Rolling Stone. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I agree with the other non-voters (since it isn't a vote) that the topic of "cults" is way over-covered on WP. (Especially S....ogy.) - Steve Dufour (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and its parent organization have given significant coverage to this topic? Where? When? How much coverage? In what capacity? What were the titles of these sources? -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are given in the footnotes of the article. (I mentioned before that there are over 400 articles on a group about the same size as the Raëlian Movement. Its name starts with "S.") Steve Dufour (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which cites, specifically, are you referring to? The vast majority of them in this article are directly affiliated with the organization itself, and are thus not independent of the parent organization. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These don't look like in-depth coverage of the topic of this article to me. I wanted to check, but after trying two that simply don't exist any more I gave up. About that other group: Notability isn't about group size. Hans Adler 14:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Answering Cirt's question) Rolling Stone, Washington Times, National Enquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, and an Italian publication called Bellaciao which doesn't have an article on English WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions at best. Fails significant coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But still they establish that the award exists and is deemed worthy of at least mention in multiple reliable sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they still fail WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re the "multiple reliable sources" I cannot get to some of the sources, but all evidence suggests that every such reference is somewhere between News of the Weird and fluff column-filler. It's clear that they don't think the award is notable; they think it's trivial. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you want to propose to change WP policy to ban articles on trivial topics. I will support you 100%. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing the concepts of trivial topic and trivial mention. Hans Adler 19:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Hans Adler - please note that Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) may not have an adequate comprehension of WP:NOTE. Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) once attempted to get a Featured Article deleted from existence on Wikipedia, the article Xenu, see the unanimous consensus from the AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenu (second nomination). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. It appears to put things into their proper context. Obviously as a user with a real name account I would not have dared contradict such a user if I had known this background. Hans Adler 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to contradict me all you like. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One last comment MSM coverage All references given are for individual awards. There's no citation for the award as a whole. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 8 November 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. There is consensus here that the current article is in a very poor state, but also that there is potential for an article here. Therefore am closing this as keep but with my strong recommendation (not only recommendation, this is only my opinion) that anyone should reduce the article to a stub then we can start again at building up a better article. Davewild (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playground surfacing[edit]

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

This article appears to be nothing more than a semi-obvious dictionary definition and a whole lot of unsourced information that are, essentially, bullet points and a table about the different types of surfaces available. Could be spam for Fibar; many of the YouTube (!) links are to their videos, and the "slideshow" on the side of the article can be attributed to them. Possibly also a cleverly-velied how-to. Regardless the article as written is wholly unencyclopedic, possibly WP:OR and WP:SYN (such as the information about safety with citation to completely irrelevant YouTube videos), and fails WP:RS. Kinu ^t/_c 03:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a soapbox piece and/or advertising. JIP | Talk 07:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find numerous news stories going back to 1939. I find many descriptions in books. If current article has shortcomings, then the solution is editorial improvement rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordinarily I would send an article like this to rescue, but sometimes an article has such egregious WP:OR/WP:SPAM issues that it's better to start over. It's hard to discern what, if anything, is of value and salvageable here, due to the tone and lack of legitimate sourcing. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The state of the article as written is largely irrelevant as it is our editing policy to improve poor articles, not delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the same policy also states [f]ix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. I saw nothing to satisfy the former action, so I opted to nominate this for the latter action. Instead of a vague policy-wielding argument, it would helpful to state what specific content in the actual article is sourceable and appropriate for an article on playground surfacing. Likewise, this article has been around for 16 months and has shown little improvement, and it is essentially borderline original research. One policy shouldn't be used to justify violation of another policy. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not an article improvement service. You are the one trying to make a case for a particular action here and you have failed to do so. If you require ideas on how to improve the article, please see Encyclopedia of educational research which contains detailed information about this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about assuming good faith? I never said AfD was an article improvement service, but if the article can be improved reasonably, that would not be unwelcome. Your !vote implies that some of the content is salvageable, and I was merely asking you which content you think falls under that. I don't see it, but apparently you do. That information would be helpful, possibly, for anyone who might share the opinion that the article is salvageable and would want to attempt to improve the article before the AfD closes. That would be much more productive than providing me links to books on research, which is a borderline personal attack and wholly unnecessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Nominal referencing suggests more coverage is available. Looks like it just needs some TLC (tender loving cleanup). Redfarmer (talk) 22:20, 4 November 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 Catherine Zeta Jones. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milkwood Films[edit]

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

Though linked to Catherine Zeta Jones, I can't find anything promising from IMDB or a google search, to truelly prove notability. I suggest merging to Zeta Jones's page or deleting. Sadads (talk) 03:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:RS. --Monterey Bay (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Catherine Zeta Jones due to lack of notbaility established. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:31, 3 November 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superdickery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very, very little coverage. The only two sources are just slapdash articles that list a bunch of websites that the staff thought were cool; everything else I found was a false positive except for a similarly trivial coverage on Boing Boing. Utterly fails WP:WEB. Last AFD was over 3 years ago; article hasn't improved since. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love this site and was tempted to !vote keep but I can't find anything aside from what hammer found. It's a damn shame we can't keep this article. :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm right there with you, Ron - I'd love to be able to put a Keep here. But the sourcing just isn't there, and I try not to be a hypocrite before I get my coffee. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the Kenyan parliamentary election, 2007[edit]

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

As Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article may justify deletion. This election is already summarized at Kenyan parliamentary election, 2007 D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The results of a nationwide parliamentary election aren't exactly "indiscriminate information". My only concern is that the links that once sourced this article all seem to be broken. It's possible that this could be merged into Kenyan parliamentary election, 2007, but the summary there is a breakdown of how many seats each party won. Limiting to that would be like confining the information about tomorrow's U.S. midterm elections to a summary of how many Democrats and Republicans won. Mandsford 02:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. This is too much detail for the article on the election itself, but is still encyclopedic. Articles like this are common for most democracies. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to main article per User:Mandsford. Results of nationwide parliamentary elections are encyclopedic information. JIP | Talk 07:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Agreed, national elections should be notable for our purposes. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:12, 8 November 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. Courcelles 00:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adetona Gabriel Balogun[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Even if sources are located, I'm not sure any of his accomplishments are particularly notable. J04n(talk page) 02:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Coverage appears nonexistent. Ray^Talk 22:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus[edit]

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

With the exception of the two books (or maybe one) that he wrote, almost nothing is known about this person. There will likely never be anything to say about the man, only his books. The question is whether to have a biography about an author who is a complete mystery. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course. We know very little about very many writers. In Vegetius' case what we know (both from his books and from external sources) is more than for many: that he was a Christian, that he wrote at some point between the death of Gratian and 450, that he held one of the top positions in the imperial civil service, that he kept horses. The two (or probably three) works of his that we have are diverse and an article on the author brings them together. (Incidentally, the current article is merely poor, whereas the De Re Militari article is terrible.) N p holmes (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. In such cases literary and biographical study are connected. At the very least it would be merged, but I agree that having a separate place to discuss any issues regrading life or disputed authorship is the better choice. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly keep -- Even if his authorship of one book is doubtful, an article on him is worth having. In view of the clear consensus the merge nomination should also be closed as a Keep (or possibly merging the book to this article). It is not unusual for us to know very little of subjects in the ancient world, but that is not reson for WP not setting out what is known. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My rule of thumb is that people who lived before movable type are notable if their names were written down in a preserved text. Ancient Roman writers on the art of war are the sorts of thing that belong in encyclopedias, even if very little is known about them personally. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Encyclopedia-worthy topic and passably sourced. The writings are the point here, the author's bio may never be written, but that doesn't mean his name isn't going to be searched or the content here is insufficient. Well enough sourced and nicely enough done, leave it alone. Carrite (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See discussion. (I'm new at this. Sorry I got it in the wrong place.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelA (talk contribs) 13:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The criterion for inclusion is not, as the nominator seems to think, how much is known about him, but rather how much has been written about him in reliable sources. Almost nothing is known about Pythagoras (even whether he existed has been disputed) but a huge amount has been written about him, and he is certainly notable. I don't know how much coverage there is of Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus, which is why I am not going for a "keep" or a "delete", but I just wanted to make clear what the issue to be discussed is and is not. Elton Bunny (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per (1) Colonel A ("Recommend retaining. Since Vegetius' two known works are so different--and not subsets of each other--a reader might legitimately want to know how much--or little--is known about him."), (2) Smerdis ("people who lived before movable type are notable if their names were written down in a preserved text." and "Ancient ... writers on the art of war are the sorts of thing that belong in encyclopedias..."), and (3) my own standards based on what he said. If you were notable enough 2,000 years ago to get your name onto parchment, you are still notable: once notable, always notable. Bearian (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the standard of biographies ought to be how much is reported or known about the subject, then scores of biographies would have to be deleted, e.g., Walter Olson. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important historian. He was sufficiently important for 1911 Britannica, why he is not for Wikipedia :) -- Bojan Talk 07:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Deletion rationale is flawed, it could equally well apply to Homer.Edward321 (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Balmer[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, in that he has only competed within League of Ireland which is not a fully professional league. Also, this is an unsourced WP:BLP that I can find coverage on in only one reliable source, not enough for WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 01:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wasn't able to find anything more than the reference mentioned in the nomination. PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, as WP:NFOOTBALL requires. The coverage added to the article is very local and very thin, and is not significant enough for a proper biography, per WP:BIO. Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, player hasn't done anything in his career that he hadn't done before the first discussion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no indication he meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:56, 5 November 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 United States Senate election in New Mexico, 2006. Courcelles 00:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allen McCulloch[edit]

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

Non-notable politician who got trounced in a Senate election. Does not appear to get significant coverage outside his campaign. Mkativerata (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in the interest of disclosure, I nominated this for speedy, some local coverage, only thing I found outside of the failed bid for election was minor coverage regarding an auto accident and a failure to appear that resulted in a bench warrant. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. He hasn't received much coverage, probably because of the margin by which he was defeated in the election, and he never held any office. --Slon02 (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate election in New Mexico, 2006#Candidates_2. Some of the material could be summarized and merged into the Campaign section. Flatterworld (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Flatterworld, though I imagine that one of the few articles with a bluelink to this individual would be that senate election article - which shows precisely why this should be a redirect. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Balloon[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and none of the claims in the article meet WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article has no sources to determine notability, and I couldn't find any to do so. --Slon02 (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to find any coverage (beyond a gig listing), including in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete unless some sources are offered by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 4 November 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 MTV. Since no-one has argued for her notability, and this is a BLP, it seems best to remove it for the time being; since the show she presents still has no article, a redirect as a plausible search term to MTV seems reasonable though, so I have enacted that. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lenay Dunn[edit]

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

Olsent1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

American actress and presenter. Can't find evidence of satisfying N or ENT. Article refs are poor (eg spammy or not independent) and couldn't find much better. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article for 10 on Top and redirect this article to it. 10 on Top is notable, it's a major show on one of the largest television networks, MTV. The nominated actress is not, although it's verified that she's the host of the show, she hasn't had any other major roles.--hkr Laozi speak 07:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 2 November 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. Close call, but the coverage and notability aren't really here for a BLP. Courcelles 00:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Meow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable person. Lack of reliable sources for their life. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD has one link to a reliable source that still works and may help to establish notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the same reasons given by DHowell in the last AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 06:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable accomplishments. The NYT source is merely a paragraph as one of the half-dozen squatters interviewed for an article, and I see no other usable sources. To judge whether its a significant coverage you need to read the article, & the coverage needs to be something relating to notability . DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a frequent guest on the Howard Stern show, she has more notoriety than just as a squatter. Another discussion says she wants all references to Stern deleted from her bio, but if the article stays I also think the Stern references should be restored as well. Urban Datura

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 2 November 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 Slon02 (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MettleM (magazine)[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine, the first issue hasn't even been released yet. E. Fokker (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a single-source as given by the article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N. And the publication has not even started, so WP:CRYSTAL applies as well. De728631 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 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. Courcelles 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animales Sueltos[edit]

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

Non-notable comedy group walled garden. Claims to have sponsorship from southern comfort and popularity, but I see nothing to support that. Keep in mind that their name means "stray animals" so many hits will be the common use of the phrase. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 2 November 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. Courcelles 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Moreno (comedian)[edit]

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

Non-notable comedy group walled garden. Claims to have sponsorship from southern comfort and popularity, but I see nothing to support that. Keep in mind that their name means "stray animals" so many hits will be the common use of the phrase. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 2 November 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. Courcelles 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Carvajal[edit]

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

Non-notable comedy group walled garden. Claims to have sponsorship from southern comfort and popularity, but I see nothing to support that. Keep in mind that their name means "stray animals" so many hits will be the common use of the phrase. Gigs (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 2 November 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 into World Academy of Art and Science --Mike Cline (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SEED-WAAS[edit]

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

Non-notable division of marginal organization. Orange Mike | Talk 00:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the World Academy of Art and Science article. WAAS is hardly marginal, it was founded by a Nobel Peace Prize winner, John Boyd Orr and was covered extensively by mainstream outlets such as the New York Times in the 1960s and 1970s, with slightly more trivial mentions in the 90s and 2000s. The notability of this entry is debatable, but since both the SEED-WAAS and WAAS articles are short, I'd support a merge.--hkr Laozi speak 11:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:CLUB: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Redirect or Merge to World Academy of Art and Science. Standalone articles on subchapters do not have consensus to exist on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 10 November 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 for any specific action, perhaps a merge discussion on the article's talk page is in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kholida[edit]

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

Are gotras notable? I think not. Seems to me this should be either deleted or merged into Yadav. Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree with the nominator, I don't think the subject is notable, or at least has the resources to verify that it is. Supporting a merge to either List of gotras or Yadav, whichever is more appropriate.--hkr Laozi speak 07:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In answer to the nominator's question, it seems that some gotras would be what would have been classified by Western anthropolists as ethnic groups or tribes, which I would consider notable, and others are what would, from that perspective, be called extended families, which usually wouldn't be notable. I'm not going to express an opinion on this particular group, because my past experience has shown that such articles are a bugger to find English-language sources for, often relying on sources such as the rather dubiously reliable nineteenth-century A Glossary Of The Tribes And Castes Of The Punjab And North-West Frontier Province by H. A. Rose (deliberately redlinking because we should have articles). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 November 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 Alex Lifeson#Guitar equipment,. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hentor Sportscasters[edit]

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

This article is basically a prank about a non-existent guitar maker. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alex Lifeson#Guitar equipment, as had been suggested on the talk page three years ago. More of an in-joke by a notable artist for fans than a hoax, but I agree its not notable enough to deserve it's own article.--hkr Laozi speak 08:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alex Lifeson#Guitar equipment. This subject definitely isn't notable, and it being merged is the best that should happen to it. --Slon02 (talk) 01:58, 2 November 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 Christianity. Problematic. It is a phrase in use, but as mentioned this is effectively OR. If so, it can't go to Wiktionary in it's current state. Thus a redirect might be better until the issues with it can be sorted out. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream Christianity[edit]

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

WP:OR/dictionary defintion —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem like original research. Is there a potential redirect target? Abductive (reasoning) 08:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV laden definition with lack of references to establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although possibly as a soft redirect to Wiktionary if it discusses this. The term is notable and exists in common usage, although there's a lot more to it (and differing perspectives, of course) than what appears here. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to Dictionary. This is a mere definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or (as I susggested before) transwikify. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Goosebumps characters[edit]

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

Since there is no recurring characters in the Goosebumps series, this list is very trivial. -- d'oh! _[talk] 07:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could say that for about 90% of every other series. Then again, people could easily do their own site if they need this list. For now I'll say "Keep", but we'll see how it goes. (I'll keep editing for now) MJN SEIFER (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of characters are appropriate for fictional franchises, no matter how trite, and the lack of recurring characters isn't necessarily a bar to inclusion. Plus, this provides a great target into which any other Goosebumps character articles can be merged. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Goosebumps in an anthology book series, while some books in the series do have sequels these are few and far between, and there is little to any crossover between the other stories. Essentially this would be like compiling a list of every "Twilight Zone" character, yes technically it can be done, but it probably shouldn't be.--Deathawk (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several characters are well known in the article, such as Slappy the Dummy [42] and the Haunted Mask [43], and have sources linked to them. Also, many of the characters are named in published reviews or articles on the books [44][45][46] (there are many more than this). It's notable enough to have it's own list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fearstreetsaga (talk • contribs) 07:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Articles that are either unsourced or sourced only to the fictional work itself are rarely appropriate. This is especially true for a fictional universe that does not really have any consistent major protagonists or antagonists. As Deathawk says, this would be like synthesizing a list of Twilight Zone characters. Or a list of "villains of the week" in some show. This kind of thing belongs on a fan wiki, where trivia and fan interpretation are OK, but not a serious encyclopedia. I also find the rationale that we should keep this article because some time someone might write more crufty in-universe plot summaries and we might like to have somewhere to dump the shit to be a very poor argument. Reyk _YO! 01:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use the term "crufy" it's a violation of the rules. I accept your opinion though MJN SEIFER (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against using the word "cruft". There's an essay that recommends against it, but essays do not carry any kind of official weight and I don't think much of this particular one. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No rule against calling something cruft. None of these characters meet the WP:GNG. And there's nothing to WP:Verify notability of these characters in aggregate. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 8 November 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. I fully expect this to go to DRV, and I don't mind if it does because it'll highlight a possible problematic issue; like User:Courcelles, who relisted it, I am uncomfortable with retaining this. Our notability guidelines in this area are not clear. This person clearly doesn't have any "prolonged or substantial coverage', the only reference is to the medal win, and it's a BLP about a minor. I'm going to err on the side of safety here, I'm afraid. If/when it can be decided that Youth Olympics medal winners are specifically notable even if they don't pass WP:GNG, then restoration would be indicated. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olli Petra[edit]

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

User:AngChenrui is currently adding dozens of articles on children that won medals at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. Most of these do not have any coverage except for this one win. While Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does include athletes that won medals at the Olympic Games, but this refers to the adult version. In addition Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#High_school_and_pre-high_school_athletes states that people competing at under-college level should only be deemed notable if there is "substantial and prolonged coverage" Travelbird (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to add that its not just athletes who have won medals at the Olympic Games, but any athlete who has participated at the Olympic Games. ANG CHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSPORT: "Sports figures are ... presumed notable if they have participated in a major international amateur ... competition at the highest level". As Olympic medal winners - most individual NOCs refer to them as such - they are inherently notable. Str Pby (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we come to a consensus that the Youth Olympics should be treated as a major international amateur event like the Olympics? If we did, then this seems to be an easy keep; if not, it's a delete. Either way, whether we should delete this turns on the results of the last debate. Bds69 (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really uncomfortable with this one. It seems a lot of hand-waving equating this person with a medallist in the "normal" Olympics is going on, without regard to the precedent this establishes for lots of stubby articles on children. Can we discuss this, please? Courcelles 00:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't agree that the Youth Olympics should be considered "as good as" the Olympics in terms of qualifying its participants for notability. They are inherently a lower level event for younger competitors. As WP:NSPORT says, "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they ... have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." The Youth Olympics are not the "highest level" relative to the Olympics. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the notability issue is a grey area here, and it also pertains to all Youth Olympic athletes. It is possible to base notability on whether the athlete in question has been noted in publications independent of the organisers. So for example, if say Olli Petra's career or performance was reported (beyond just a few-words mention) in a newspaper, thats it. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Senior Olympic athletes are considered inherently notable because they will have - almost invaribly - received significant media coverage before reaching the Olympics and will very often have competed in a range of other high level events prior and after appearing in the Olympics. Therefore such athletes should generally be assumed to be notable.
- The same however does not apply to junior athletes, a substantial number of which never end up competing at the senior level. Thus it cannot be assumed with the same level of certainty that they will have/ will in the future receive a comparable amount of media coverage and athletic presence that participants at the (senior) Olympics have. Travelbird (talk) 17:46, 9 November 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. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avicii[edit]

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

This article has twice been deleted previously—once as a prod, once as a speedy. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion of notability, so taking it to AfD. ^Bongo_matic 12:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite his "millions of hits on YouTube". No reliable third-party coverage. Powers ^T 12:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria #2 at WP:MUSICBIO. Has had singles chart on the national Germany and UK charts and #1 on the international Beatport DJ charts (Beatport is the bible for DJs). Meets criteria #4 at WP:MUSICBIO 2010 world tour.[47][48] Meets criteria #12 of WP:MUSICBIO exclusive half-hour show on Sirius Satellite Radio (October 23, 2010).[49][50] Cindamuse (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above meets criteria #2 at WP:MUSICBIO. Has now had a top 20 single in Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK so definitely notable. Mhiji (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Mhiji and Cinamuse. --Slon02 (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article easily fails WP:N's requirement for third part coverage. Lacks anything of that sort.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 04:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Has third-party coverage in the Las Vegas Sun and in Music Week, as noted by Cindamuse. I added a second Music Week article about him as well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but... He has indeed had hits in quite a few different countries, but all the chart archives I found (using the charts listed at WP:GOODCHARTS), have him listed as Tim Berg. What a gwan? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added content to the article, culled from the refs offered in this discussion. Cindamuse (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Josephs Boys AFC[edit]

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

Does not seem notable and has no adult teams. —Half Price 14:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —Half Price 14:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep already has over a dozen links from other Wikipedia articles, so has a fair amount of interest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that the article has been live for over two years. A dozen links in two years isn't great. —Half Price 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having other articles linked to doesn't mean it should be kept. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is no indication that this team meets any of the relevant notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Having "interest" alone does not confer notability. An article has to live on its own merits. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG requirements of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 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. Courcelles 00:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motorcycle Display Team[edit]

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

Band which may not meet the notability criteria for bands Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meh - they might be notable enough, but no ref's to tell for sure. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any real claim to notability here, and no significant coverage was found.--Michig (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 November 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. But please add some of the coverage identified here to the article. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mucklewain[edit]

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

Subject article is not notable enough. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 16:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I actually think there is enough reliable sources to verifiy the notability of this festival, but it needs to be added to the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At present, the article shows no notability, and gives very little info except that the festival is making a point. Come on - there must be something more to be said. We don't even know if it's been held for years or is scheduled to start in 2032. Peridon (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal coverage from reliable sources, coverage all seems local. Vodello (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The existing article is very uninformative. However, it does appear that this festival got substantial coverage, as shown by the "press" page from its website[51]. That coverage included national media like No Depression[52] and CMT [53]. As far as I can determine from on-line sources, the festival lasted only 2 years[54], so some might question whether it deserves its own article, but I think there's enough here to support one.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2013 UEFA European Under-19 Football Championship[edit]

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

Too early. This tournament will not happen for 3 years. There is not even an article for the 2012 tournament yet. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^converse 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2028 Summer Olympics going to be after 18 years but nobady do not deleting it for that. Xraig (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)— Xraig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally not a convincing argument to keep an article. Also, comparing the Olympics to a teenager football tournament doesn't seem like a fair or relevant comparison. Cities will often start preparing for a bid to host the olympics more than a decade before the event would actually happen, which is why the comments on the AfD for the 2028 Olympics (which closed as no consensus, by the way) focused on the fact that there were reliable sources which were already discussing which cities were preparing to bid for it. SnottyWong ^comment 21:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is not really anything to say about this tournament yet, especially since only one of the competing nations has been decided. In addition, I can't imagine this is notable yet. Are people interested in it yet? The google search yields a single result from a rather underwhelming website which has a link to this page which has just copied the WP article lead. —Half Price 09:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For info, that entire site is merely a Wikiscrape -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Giant Snowman 09:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As well, the article can be recreated when there is a wealth more of information. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motorvators[edit]

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

EXTREMELY minor Transformers subgroup. It's unlikely reliable sources exist to verify notability. Divebomb (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- very minor, not notable. --Khajidha (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Allen for IPv6 18:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Transformers (toy line). What little coverage these characters got is not enough by far for their own article. JIP | Talk 07:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're kidding right? They never got any coverage. They just.....exist. --Divebomb (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the sake of building a consensus. But the lack of substantial coverage in third-party sources would be enough to warrant deletion according to the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there is no sourced content, so a merge is not appropriate. Feel free to establish a redirect after deletion if you want. Reyk _YO! 01:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more thinly veiled rubbish trying to pass itself as notable without reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see why these guys should be mentioned anywhere really. NotARealWord (talk) 16:04, 7 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jao[edit]

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

Tiny skin care company, not notable. —Chowbok ☠ 17:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jewish Autonomous Oblast where the redirect JAO is pointed to.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company. I wouldn't recommend the redirect suggested by Lenticil; let JAO do that job and kill Jao. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 10 November 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) 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveMath[edit]

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

Appears to be both an organization and a software package; does not establish notability as either. The only WP:RS provided might be legitimate scholarly articles, but both are authored by the project's senior researcher (Dr. Erica Melis); thus this article is based solely on primary sources without any actual third-party support. Searching for information only tends to bring up press releases (mainly in German) and a few cursory mentions without actual information about the topic. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

-- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Polx (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC): contesting deletion. The software is described in some papers made by others. One article already linked, others to come. [reply]

Delete, weakly: apparently created by an academic, almost all sourceable coverage seems to be traceable to her. Article is strongly promotional in tone, and vague: a web-server software that supports learners self-regulated path through techniques such as Adaptivity, Artificial Intelligence, User modeling, Semantics, and intelligent tutoring systems; this string of glittering generalities and buzzwords doesn't even mention mathematics. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... the buzzwordiness makes it seem like this could be borderline WP:SPAM as well, and the edits appear to be coming from SPAs with connection to the subject (as a simple search of those real-world usernames reveals). I do see a third reference which at least isn't "Melis, et al."... but there's no way of knowing how much of it is actually firm coverage about the topic, rather than a review/comparison to other technologies (the abstract indicates ten such systems), and one reference does not constitute "significant third-party coverage" anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with the promotional tone which should be tuned down. I know the platform and find that the buzzwords are actually meaningful here, and this is because the platform is about mathematics where a model of the learner's competencies can be automatically updated when the learner answers exercises testing these competencies. It's way harder in other fields (except maybe linguistics and grammar or mathematically oriented physics) where building an interactive exercise with randomness is so difficult. Because of the artificial intelligence engines, it's much easier in math to produce (infinitely) many training exercises on the same subject of roughly the same difficulty. I haven't published anything about it yet. Christian.Mercat (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there are no sources indicating this noteworthiness you are suggesting. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I would like to request a longer "grace period" since finding sources that are web-friendly is harder than finding literature pointers. I just found a web-accessible-for-free variant of the first citation and added another one. Polx (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion was relisted. I would suggest finding sources that actually establish notability. The second source (Trgalova) appears to be identical to the first; it is also the only one that is accessible. That source appears to be a chart which only mentions the subject of this article three times in comparison to other similar software, and even those mentions are very trivial and in a chart. Likewise, based on the abstract, it is hard to assess the depth of coverage in the Bokhove article. That hardly meets the significant coverage aspect of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just looked the full text of the other (Bokhove) article; ActiveMath is mentioned in a total of about four scattered sentences throughout the article. Again, not significant coverage, but a very cursory comparison to other systems. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, it is only fair to point out the possible conflict of interest in this article, per your user page. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Christian. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given this vague non-rationale, I will ask you the same question I asked him: where are the sources? The only information appears to be either (a) primary sources or (b) extremely cursory reviews of the software. Nothing to establish notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are lots of similar products about and I can't see anything which makes this one standout. The references are not really enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web).--Salix (talk): 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey User:Salix alba, we'd be enchanted to hear about more similar products of which there seems to be lots. Honestly, I haven't seen that. It'd be time we hear about these ;-). Polx (talk) 21:44, 7 November 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. Fram (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown patterns in Canada and the United States[edit]

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

No sourcing whatsoever and almost certainly original research …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The content here is a reduplication of what's already on List of Chinatowns and Chinatown (which are also redundant and overlap). What a "Chinatown pattern" might be is anyone's guess, and even if there are studies of specific patterns of development for Chinese commercial/residential eras, such are not properly termed "Chinatowns" - except as synth/original research. There's also List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations which also overlaps with this article, with both of them overlapping with Chinatowns in Canada and the United States.Skookum1 (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion looks like synthesis of original research. Would also recommend adding to the AfD rotation the above mentioned forking articles. Moxy (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim that there is "no sourcing whatever" was blatantly false. It is easy to add more sources, as I have just demonstrated by adding a source where a citation was required. There is abundant literature about this topic and so the claim that this is OR seems implausible and is not supported by any examples or evidence. Deletion of promising material of this kind would be contrary to our editing policy and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the source you added did not establish the validity of this content fork, i.e. vs Chinatowns in Canada and the United States or other related pages, and does not establish "Chinatown patterns" as a subject of study or relevance. it's easy to add sources; but are they relevant to the resulting WP:SYNTH and WP:OR? It's not OR that needs to be proven or given examples for; it's the notion that there are such thigns as "Chinatown patterns" that needs evidence and examples - and by that I mean research and conclusions created in any by the article. There's clearly SYNTH goin g on here, and there's also content-forking from various other articles. You say that's "implausible" but I don't see why or how you coudl say such a thing. Find me independent examples of the notion of "Chinatown patterns" and you might have a point...perhaps that phrase came from "patterns of Chinatown formation/settlement"....but books on the Chinese disapora are not the same as books on "Chinatown patterns".Skookum1 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)+[reply]

We need more than assertions to support accusations of SYN or OR. It is quite common for draft articles to be poorly sourced and our editing policy is to attend to such deficiencies rather than to delete. You demand that I or others do the work; what is it that you are going to do? As for specific sources about the patterns of development, please see Ethnoburb versus Chinatown. That's the third source I have provided now and it was easy to find such. What I tell you three times is true. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And taht's another source which shores up the original research/content fork, but doesn't prove its validity.

"Vague accusations" of SYN/OR? I have yet to see a citation showing that "Chinatown patterns" exist as a field of study. Again, as below, it's you that have to show that this article's topic is legitimate and NOT a content-fork from the many overlapping articles; it posits a thesis and then explores examples to prove that thesis; that's clearly original research and synth; you're asking me to prove night and day are night and day....while evading the point that this is a clear content fork from other articles (in fact, it was established AS a content fork - see its talkpage).Skookum1 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment [pre-edit conflict] The opening two paragraphs of the article make statements that are unsupported, as well as explicitly laying out the content fork explicitly: The common features of Chinatowns and social problems common to Chinatown are covered in the main Chinatown article. i.e. as if "patterns" were somehow different from "common features" and "social problems common to Chinatown [sic]". Then it goes on to claim that there are the three stated types of Chinatowns; but this is a thesis of hte article, which then sets out to prove itself. The application of the term "Chinatown" to refer to suburban cities which have become Chinese-dominant since the mass migrations of the '80s and since is spurious and entirely a conceit of "Wiki scholarship" (aka original research); those areas are not called Chinatown, and their non-Chinese residents and even their Chineese ones do not use (or like) the term. And the distinction between "rural and frontier Chinatowns" and "urban Chinatowns" is entirely specious; I come from places which fit both supposed categories; the difference is only one of scale and location. The notion that they are somehow different is entirely a conceit of this article and others where this SYNTH/OR thesis is present. All you've done is add a cite which contributes to the OR/SYNTH, you haven't added a cite to establish the article's overall thesis as legitimate; you've just contributed to its illegitimacy by continuing with/reinforcing the original research....Skookum1 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think anyone is saying its not a notable topic that is covered by many publication. But after reading some real books on the topic [55] [56] ....I would say this article is a great big POV full of assumptions and misleading wording that i cant find refs for. The article should be redone from the start, noting much can be saved here.Moxy (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much? Well how about the references I have added? If we're saving anything then we're no longer talking about deletion. Please see our editing and merger policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat a good start. Cant you find 50 more to support all the statements that have been contested? Again the concept is fine but the article is not. The policies you are pointing to refer to information that is referenced. Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly say :The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. If we go by our "core policy" all should be removed except the 2 statements you have added refs to, so what are we left with for an article? Moxy (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:STUB and our editing policy. It is quite normal for us to have a thin start for an article and so this is not a reason to delete. See also our deletion policy: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again non of this rules can be applied to info that is not sources and/or POV and/or patently biased. Its not a stub and in fact is a big article that has 2 refs. If you can find me a wiki policy that says unsourced material can stay i will vote to keep the article. Been here for a long time and this is one of the worst article i have seen in years. Moxy (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[undent]Comment - The "Ethnoburb vs. Chinatown" article provided as a "reference" above by Colonel Warden turns out to be NOT in support of the thesis that Monterey Park is a Chinatown; in fact it says something quite opposite:

The San Gabriel Valley Chinese settlement is a new phenomenon emerging on a geographical scale that surpasses the earlier Chinatown model. It includes cities, Census Designated Places (CDPs) and unincorporated areas in the Valley with substantial numbers of Chinese people. However, as I began my investigations, I frequently read and heard people refer to Monterey Park as the "suburban Chinatown," which implied that Monterey Park was the same sort of place as downtown Chinatown, only located in the suburbs (Fong 1994 ; Lai 1988). Just as Los Angeles has always been thought as "atypical" in the American urban experience, Los Angeles' Chinese settlement in the San Gabriel Valley centered in Monterey Park was also considered a "unique" and isolated case of urban ethnic community formation. But the more I experienced the differences between the two Chinese communities in Los Angeles, the more uneasy I felt about such a labeling of Monterey Park.

So we are confronted, as in other similar articles (Southern California Chinatowns) we are confronted with supposedly valid references which do not support the original research, and in fact actually confound it, being presented as if they supported it....Ethnoburb patterns in North America perhaps, but not "Chinatowns". The author you linked, Colonel Warden, is quite explicit about the differences, and about the use of the name/term. And again, how content here might be made distinct from Chinatowns in Canada and the United States and/or List of Chinatowns/List of Chinatowns in the United States is not clear at all.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing of this rather extensive article remains as scant today as the day it was created. It's been around long enough... Maybe it's impossible to source, maybe it was lifted from somewhere, either way, it falls a long way short of the standards required. We ought to be highly suspicious. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, and for failing to abide by WP:PSTS. Abductive (reasoning) 05:17, 10 November 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 Safestyle UK#Jeff Brown. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Brown (sports announcer)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, entire article already exists as a section in Safestyle. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Safestyle, where the article has already been merged. Sole claim to notability is through association with this company, and there is nowhere near enough coverage to justify a stand-alone article. I'm not even sure he qualifies for that much coverage in the Safestyle article either, but that's a content debate for the Safestyle contributors. Oh, and I like the selective usage of this reference. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better still delete --As far as I can make out he appears as a sports announcer in an Advert, i.e. is an actor, not a sports presenter. Seems utterly NN to me, but redirect would be better than keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to The Wiggles[edit]

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

Sources are primary, IMDB, YouTube or otherwise unreliable. Adds nothing to the article. Nothing but a big laundry list of blatant trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, back when I was a greenhorn editor. (The Wiggles was the first article I lead through FAC. It was at one point a part of that article, and I thought I was Doing Good by splitting it off. I agree, though, that this article is inconsistent with WP's policies, so if you want to delete it, go right ahead, knock yerself out, I give you my blessings. ;) Christine (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as this seems a dumb topic, it does appear to meet WP:IPC. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. A few of the listed items might be overly trivial but others are significant enough (and sourced). --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is pretty trivial Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- trivial list is trivial. It fails WP:N through lack of substantial, reliable coverage (what we have is an article congealed from many passing mentions, which puts it well and truly in WP:SYNTH territory as well). Furthermore, WP:IPC is an essay with no force at all. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that it was a guideline. This article actually fails it. Let me explain:

"(In popular culture sections) should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader."- only borderline verifiable and of no interest to the reader.
"Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article"- sure, but contextless passing mentions do not even approach that
"When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft."- FAIL

Reyk _YO! 01:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that references have occurred is not enough on its own to justify an article like this. These references have not given rise to any substantial commentary about anything. In other words, there's no evidence that this might pass the threshold of WP:N. Mango juice^talk 17:21, 8 November 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 Concordia USD 333. I will redirect with history preserved so anyone can merge what is required to the school district article. Davewild (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia Middle School[edit]

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

Non-notable middle school. I redirected to the school district, but it was contested. Therefore, here I am recommending that the school is redirected per standard practice for non-notable elementary and middle schools. The premise of notability presented by another editor was that the school is notable because the school district has a middle school and a separate junior high school. In my opinion, this may lend to the notability of the school district, but the school itself, continues to lack notability. Cindamuse (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely will never be more than a stub, and a redirect could be acceptable if the re-direct would contain the notable information in the original article but the original re-direct did not. Notability arises from the school district having both a "middle" school and "junior high" school, were most (if not perhaps all) other districts/systems in at least the US have either a middle school or a junior high. Students in this district are required to go through both--first through the middle school, then through the junior high.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merging was suggested in 2008. I chimed in against, and no one responded (see Talk:Concordia Middle School.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the district, as always for middle schools unless there is something actually special. Even if the assertion is true that the organizational aspect is unique, this in no sense is special enough for encyclopedic notability. I'm glad it's finally been accepted that we can use the relatively simple method of AfD to take care of disputed closes. Otherwise there would be no practical alternative but to delete and rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Schools below high schools are a pain to maintain cause the kids, on whom you would normally wish to help with editing, spend almost all their time, 90:1 on vandalizing! A lost cause. If we semi-protect the article, no updates at all; but if we don't most of the edits are either vandalization or reversion of them. A total waste of editors time. Student7 (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response there is no evidence of that happening on this page, and "it might get vandalized" is not a reason to delete an article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikipedia standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Carrite (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Carrite. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the long standing consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, a pain. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Seaman[edit]

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

The subject of this unreferenced BLP is notable solely for his work as personal assistant to John Lennon and resulting book and legal entanglements. Thus his notability is just for that one "event," and the sum and substance of this biography is to disparage the subject. I feel that this article fails WP:1E and further warrants deletion because of its general purpose to disparage Seaman. Article should be deleted or merged into John Lennon or Yoko Ono. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - A public figure by virtue of the lawsuit and a person of interest to Beatles fans, I reckon. Very borderline, but I think just leaving this alone rather that some sort of forced merger is the right way to deal with this material. Carrite (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly he is "of interest", but the Wikipedia notability guidelines have nothing to do with whether the subject is of interest. I agree with ScottyBerg: this is covered by WP:1E. Elton Bunny (talk) 16:09, 3 November 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.