The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And One[edit]

And One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Okay I'm going to bite the bullet and nominate this. Appears to be a moderately successful and long running synth band. Virtually every single, album and band member has had an article on wikipedia at some point, and virtually every one of these articles has been deleted for plain notability. This and the lack of sources, or even assertions of notability in the articles lead me to think that the band itself may not be notable.

Nom includes:

• And One
• And One discography
• Bodypop
• Aggressor (And One album)
• Any other And One articles which are lingering. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This band absolutely passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. They have had plenty of coverage in secondary sources, but it's difficult to find the sources in Google because the words in the band's name are so common. Billboard called their first single, "Metal Hammer", a "significant club hit". They have released albums on two notable labels, Metropolis Records (Bodypop) and Virgin Records (Virgin Superstar). According to the book Synthiepop - Die gefühlvolle Kälte (in German) by Dirk Horst, they were honored as the Best New Artist in Germany in 1991. I would be okay with merging the two album articles into the main band article, but keep the discography page as well. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could I suggest that somebody includes these sources in the article? Having said that, I'm not sure an appraisal of one single in a 20+ year career as 'significant' (which I don't think is a very complimentary turn of phrase in the music journalism industry) and one award makes this anything more than a borderline case.. certainly not a speedy Bob House 884 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added, and I stand by my speedy, as the band has had multiple singles chart in Germany, sometimes simultaneously. Here's an interview from 2006 from side-line news as well. Like I said, it takes a little doing to get past the initial barrier to finding information, but there's plenty out there, enough to eliminate any doubt with regard to either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the band article and discography, in agreement with Torchiest above. There is a potential problem here with the nominator linking all the AfDs into one combined proposal. As for the individual albums, there might be valid reasons for calling for deletion or redirects based on weak coverage. Therefore I suggest that deletion discussions for the albums be de-linked so editors can debate their notability in separate discussions. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can !vote delete for the album articles if you wish, this is certainly not all or nothing and a compromise may be appropriate here. Bob House 884 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These are definitely a significant band for the scene! It's unfortunate that their heyday was before the internet really took off, and thus it's harder to find information on them (plus the unfortunately difficult to search on name). Dryfter (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Add Allmusic to coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sufficient career accomplishment to merit inclusion. Rather than parsing articles about bands from the 1980s and 1990s, we should all be minding the New Articles gate for self-promotional articles about insignificant bands from the 2010s, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes[edit]

List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Reason I nominate List of Mutants in The Hills Have Eyes for deletion. It suffers from chronic fancruft; it also lacks or has minimal references to reliable third party sources and fails to adequately show the notability of the subject. Many films of similar notability do not have character sheets, such as Anaconda Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep List articles for characters in any notable series are always fine. Someone familiar with the series can perhaps cut out anything seen as unfitting. No need to delete an article, when normal editing procedures can eliminate any problem areas. Dream Focus 12:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What about the lack of references? Wikipedia:Verifiability may be validly used if the information if there are no reliable third party sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It says "primary sources are appropriate in some cases". This is one of those obvious cases. Other articles like this also mention characters found in a series, without you needing some newspaper or whatnot naming all of them for you. Dream Focus 15:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• However, it is also stated that we should not rely entirely upon primary sources. Without third-party sources, notability cannot be objectively shown. If primary source information were enough for notability, everything from Kalimantaan to Red Storm Rising to Salah Asuhan would be open to a character sheet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please note that the article deals with the the remake, its sequel and a graphic novel. The original series is not dealt with. Hence the Anaconda comparison. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a fictional character list from a series needs no third party sources if the series itself is notable, which is it. Mathewignash (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The series' notability and the characters' notability are two different things. Anaconda, for example, is definitely a notable series of its own right. Numerous reliable third party sources discussing it (even if most of those are reviews and newspaper articles). However, notability cannot be shown for its characters because nothing has been published about the characters. No studies, no notices that the characters have entered pop-culture, no reviews focusiing on them. The same applies to this character sheet. The movies themselves are clearly notable, with third-party interest up the wazoo. The characters themselves? Not so much. Notability cannot be shown for the characters, hence the article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and use to merge individual character pages into it, keeping reasonably sized descriptions. Lists like this are the way to go for material of this sort, and is the usual consensus method.  in an article, the individual parts of it need not be notable. In fact, if they are, we should have individual articles on them in addition to the list, or instead of it. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, - per Mathewignash.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has some sources. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Poops[edit]

YouTube Poops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Prod contested with the rationale, This shouldn't be proposed for deletion, the concept is actually very notable and the YouTube Poop series is very famous. However, there are no sources provided to attest that this is indeed the case. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Somewhat common slang word that is neither notable nor more than an urban dicdef if you remove the original research. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was surprised to encounter that the term is actually a term, and it is a bit widespread. It is certainly not notable though, being not much more than branded and targeted mashups, and no good resource will be turning up for a while - frankie^MR (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although there's a plethora of mentions of YouTube Poops on wikis, blogs, message boards, fansites, etc. I can't see where it's ever been mentioned by a third-party reliable source. You'd think that something this popular with kids would have gained that kind of attention, but I can't find any. If other editors can find better sourcing, naturally my !vote would change. --NellieBly (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4-repost Page clearly titled to get around title protection placed at actual name for concept since 2007. They can be hilarious, but they haven't gained additional notability since then other than on the Internet's periphery. Nate • (chatter) 05:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • G4 has been reworded since then to apply only to AfD-deleted articles. The other title has been speedied 6 times before being salted, but there's never been an AfD. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like we need to let an AFD go all the way through in order that we can have one on the record. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was not sure if it met the repost guidelines, so I'm happy for the clarification. Vote downgraded to just Delete, but no change in reasoning. Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problems there. Sometimes you need to deliberately follow an AFD process to the letter on purpose (and painfully so) so that one can have a good, solid precedent about a topic on the record. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Need to have an AFD on the record for this, as it seems there is none. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article is nothing more than a description of video mashups, hardly notable. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete The article should instead merge with Mashup (video). Do you think so?
  

~~LDEJRuff~~ 0:47, 20 April, 2011 (EDT)

• Delete - Non-notable slang word. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable neologism.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Displacement (vector). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crackle (physics)[edit]

Crackle (physics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is crackle used in any real-world application?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. It is a term used in a very minor academic context. There are a few refs in the first afd which demonstrate the term exists, however the information appears to have been 'plucked' from academic texts and not from a body of text that establishes notability. In short there are millions of scientific terms like this. Redirect and give a few sentences. Szzuk (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify ~ Redirect. I see this as a case of borderline notability in which there is mention of the term among others in published literature but not a focused treatment of the topic in said literature. The same can be said for numbers in special series (e.g. 123456789); in each case there is the potential for an inexhaustible supply of values (e.g. sixth derivative, seventh derivative, eighth derivative) and the individual notability of the specific value is inextricably tied to the notability of the series. Listification should address all of the values in the series in some fashion, and it should preserve the full information content existing in the presently nominated article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment.The information seems to have a home here: Displacement (vector). Szzuk (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's no doubt that this is a popular forum package and it might even be "notable" in a real world sense but even the "keep" !voters here concede that they are having trouble "demonstrating" that notability. In other words, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject which is unfortunately what is required to demonstrate that notability. That being said, I found the comments calling Tim's participation in this discussion "disruptive" completely uncalled for and bitey. He declared his COI and said his peace, there is nothing disruptive about that. It's up to the closer to decide how much weight it should get. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MyBB[edit]

MyBB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I have made a good faith effort to identify reliable sources for this product but have been unable to do so. Given the age of the product, one cannot suspect a WP:FUTON problem. An article on the identical topic was deleted last year when the outcome of a deletion discussion was that the product was not notable. ^Bongo_matic 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ok, here is the problem: I am seeing around 2.9 million hits for 'MyBB review' (over 40 million for just MyBB), and lots and LOTS of people talking about the software, just not in reliable source in the first few pages. I'm seeing news hits but they are incidental (bug traq, etc.). My gut feeling says this is notable and should be kept, but I just haven't found any wp:rs sources yet, will keep looking. I might even be temped to say keep using WP:IAR simply because so many people are talking about it, just in the 'wrong places'. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ok, now finding dozens of sites offering free (or cheap) MyBB services, dozens of sites dedicated to "add ons" for MyBB, hundreds of thousands of sites (yes, forums) talking about it, and so much incidental coverage that I have no choice but to conclude that the software IS notable. Verification is an issue, but I would rather leave that for article, not for AFD, and just swim through the millions of hits to find something. I understand why it went to AFD, it isn't easy to find quick WP:RS for it, but the volume of traffic regarding the subject matter proves (to me) that the subject is notable and that the problem is my ability to quickly find wp:v. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to a WP:GHITS argument, which has no validity. Please find specific instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 08:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Generally, I would agree, but this adds to a WP:IAR argument instead, something I don't do every day. In otherwords, the sheer volume of hits on the software tells me that it is a widely used free software package. It has been around for many years, and is accepted enough that several companies are using the MyBB name in their advertising to draw new business. It is very widely known. It is an exception to GNG using "common sense" per WP:IAR, but a valid one considering the totality of the coverage. There is a reason we have a guideline named Ignore All Rules, and my experience has been that in very limited circumstances, like this one, it would be appropriate since keeping it adds more to Wikipedia than deleting it. I would ask to please dig a little into the un-reliable sources before committing to a delete, and see if the weight doesn't qualify. It won't be a crime if it is deleted, but I'm convinced that inclusion would be within the spirit of the guidelines here. May tag for rescue as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me the conclusion is opposite. It has been around for a long time and adopted to a degree, but (given the prevalence of forum software, and guides to implementation of forums), the fact that this doesn't appear to have been given any significant coverage in surveys, implementation guides, or independent reviews suggest that the large number of hits reflects something other than notability (high numbers of hits from the same or similar sources, or some artifact of copied text). ^Bongo_matic 12:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time will tell, there are a few days left and it is tagged for rescue. Unlike most articles, the problem here is having too many webhits to fish through. Keep in mind that 'forum software' typically isn't reviewed by the NYTimes, it is reviewed by sites generally considered to not pass WP:RS. There are a few reviews out there, they just don't pass RS, as well as lots of coverage that falls short. Lots, which is the issue to me. I understand why we have WP:RS, but my point is the sheer volume of reviews and comments by sincere and experienced computer administrators out there, in 'non-reliable' sources shouldn't be completely dismissed out of hand. Will see what I can dig up later as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: article is almost exclusively sourced to topic's own websites, and no evidence of reliable third party sourcing is apparent through Google News or Books. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At their "about" page http://www.mybb.com/about/mybb they say they are excited when they gained over a thousand users a month back in 2006. I assumed they gained more than that since then, just forgot to update that in the past five years. When Googling for www.mybb.com I get 36,000,000 results. I don't see how they could get 36 million places to link to them, unless they had a considerably large number of people using this. Cnet and others don't talk about it at all though. That is strange. Dream Focus 15:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is my thinking. Someone has added some RS sources, but it is odd to have SO much traction in 'un'reliable sources, so many hits, yet so few reviews that pass RS. I've tried working on it, but it still needs work and will for a while, assuming it is kept. Much of the media tends to ignore 'free' software, I guess because they don't buy ads. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Why review something that is free, when their competition that isn't free is what is paying for ads? When I Google for "Powered By MyBB" I end up with "About 145,000,000 results". Of course the "Powered by MyBB" is at the bottom of every thread perhaps, not just there one time for each place that uses it. This software is surely notable, do to how many people use it. Changing my vote to keep instead of ? Dream Focus 15:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of WP:GHITS, no reliable sources. The 36 million hits above—like the "Powered by MyBB" hits—aren't from different sites, and many if not the vast majority are machine generated.

The argument that free software is not reviewed or discussed in detail in independent reliable sources is simply false. There are literally thousands of books and articles dedicated to scads of notable free software packages that have non-free competing products. ^Bongo_matic 02:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get 16 book results when I search for "MyBB" and the word "forum". [1] Dream Focus 11:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS do not indicate substantive coverage -- many (most?) of these book hits appear to be mere mention in passing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

Hi, my name is Tim and I am the product manager for MyBB. We have been experiencing issues with our wikipedia page being deleted for years and it is quite perplexing. We last fought this battle in February last year and it is unfortunate that it has come up again. I don't think there should be any doubt about the significance of our software, some very significant organisations use our software, for example:

• The official PirateBay Forums http://forum.suprbay.org/
• The largest above ground hacking forum http://hackforums.net/
• The official forums of several EA franchises (although they have removed our powered by line)
  • http://www.battlefieldheroes.com/en/forum/index.php
  • http://battlefield.play4free.com/en/forum/index.php
  • http://www.lordofultima.com/en/forum/index.php
• The official forums of Dream Host (quite a large hosting provider) http://discussion.dreamhost.com/
• The official Messenger plus forums http://www.msghelp.net/index.php

Additionally, we don't publish our download statistics but I can tell you that our last major release (MyBB 1.6) had close to 200,000 downloads and considering a significant portion of users don't keep up to date with the latest version our actual user base would be significantly larger than this. Our official support forums alone have over 40,000 members and half a million posts.

We are the third largest free forum software project, behind PHPBB and SMF, this is supported by Alexa's results.

We have awards including the best free forum software by user votes on forum-software.org in 2008 and 2010.

There are plenty of reviews around the place for us including:

• A 4.36/5 user rating on HotScripts http://www.hotscripts.com/listings/reviews/14281/ with over 8000 votes.
• A 4/5 user rating on Open Soruce CMS out over over 2500 votes http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/details.php?scriptid=118&name=MyBB
• An 8/10 editor rating and a 9/10 user rating at http://www.forum-software.org/mybb/review

Plus here are some other examples of our significance:

• We are the second most compared software on http://www.forummatrix.org/
• Our 1.4 release was published on NeoWin http://www.neowin.net/news/webware-mybb-14
• Our 1.4 codebase was completely Audited by a professional and interdependent security auditor and the majority of the 1.6 codebase is based on 1.4.
• We are featured on Softpedia http://webscripts.softpedia.com/script/Discussion-Boards/MyBB-420.html
• We have a whole section dedicated to us on The Admin Zone http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=221
• Secuina has a database of our past vulnerabilities http://secunia.com/advisories/search/?search=mybb
• There are dozens of 3rd party addon development sites for MyBB such as http://www.mybbcentral.com/, http://mybbsource.com/, http://forums.mybb-plugins.com/, http://www.mybbextras.com/, http://shopmybb.com/

To be honest I don't really see why our page is up for deletion when some other very similar projects are not:

• PhpBB - Almost all the sources are from the phpBB website.
• Simple_Machines_Forum - Very few references, many from their own website also.
• FluxBB - Far smaller userbase then us.
• Beehive_Forum - I had never even heard of them even though I run a project in the industry.

Truth be told we are not all that familiar with the processes that go on here at Wikipedia so we would appreciate any assistance in resolving this issue and hopefully ensuring it doesn't come up again.

Cheers, Tim.

MyBB Tim (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, major companies use your forum software. Did you get Cnet or Wired or anyone major to ever review your software? That's what it usually takes to convince everyone something is notable. Anywhere which doesn't just allow anyone to post a review or an entry, but has an actual staff reviewing things. Dream Focus 17:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me clarify Dream Focus 's comment, (if I may). He and I both agree the software is notable, but are having trouble demonstrating this fact. What we need is a link to one or two webpages from what we call "reliable sources" that talk about the software in a non-trivial way. This would include reviews, comparisons, etc. Reliable sources would mean mainstream websites that don't exist only to provide download links, are not pure blogs, etc. Download.com would not quality, for example. Then we simply cite the example within the article, and I'm pretty sure the problem goes away. The problems is that many of the citations are from your website (can't be used to demonstrate notability as defined at Wikipedia. Give us a couple of links, we can do the rest. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think http://www.forum-software.org/mybb/review counts as notable coverage. Dream Focus 18:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't have a big shiny "download now!" button next to it, so I would agree. I added as an external link. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a download link right next to the product name. I'd like to understand how the EL/RS criteria make shininess relevant. ^Bongo_matic 22:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: MyBB Tim's lengthy comment is irrelevant, in gross violation of WP:COI and is disruptive of this AfD. It should be removed, and this user should not be encouraged to further violate WP:COI by further participating here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest is only for editing the article. Not for helping find sources in an AFD. And it is not disruptive. You considering something irrelevant is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 19:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Complete bollocks! WP:COI#How to avoid COI edits: "Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: ... Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;" (emphasis in original) -- MyBB Tim neither avoided, nor exercised great care. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#why_shouldn.27t_a_company_help_find_sources_in_a_deletion_discussion.3F I suggested changing the wording to something less vague. "Exercise great caution" doesn't really mean anything. I suggested it just say they should identify themselves. Dream Focus 01:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim's comment is relevant as it concerns none other that the subject of the AfD, and he both disclaimed his position himself properly and made no !vote. As for being disruptive, the problem in this case is that software of this level is reviewed erratically, which makes for scarce references. That is accentuated by the simple and short name of the product, and it seems reasonable that Tim may have knowledge of reliable sources that we are missing. As for being lengthy, that's what TLDR is for - frankieMR (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant, in that it is not relevant to any notability guideline, or any policy relevant to deletion. It is disruptive in that it is a large dump of irrelevant information smack in the middle of the AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I considered Tim's comments constructive and informative to this debate, and was right on topic. I would have even if I was on the other side of the issue. You are welcome to reformat his comment (without changing the contents, of course) if you like. We do that here when appropriate, don't we? It wouldn't be expected that a new user would understand how we format things, and it isn't nice to bite the new users. The edit seems to be in good faith, so I would be opposed to blocking it. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I too find Tim's comments instructive. He demonstrates that even those most aware of the coverage of the product cannot point to any significant coverage in reliable sources. ^Bongo_matic 22:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I haven't !voted here, but I think as long as an editor discloses their COI and avoids editing the article one can hardly call it disruption. It looks like he made a good faith effort to help us find sources, so I don't see what the problem is. I've seen disruptive COI editing a time or two, and this ain't it. He didn't even !vote Keep. If his comment is too long someone can just collapse it for readability. Also, WP:BITE may be applicable here. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources used in this article are as reliable as the sources used in other comparable articles, namely vBulletin. There is no official entity that reviews bulletin board softwares, but it doesn't make the subject unnotable. There are no serious claims made in the article, and no debatable comparison is made, so the sources are "good enough" for the informative purpose. huji—TALK 01:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS addresses this argument square on. I agree that the sourcing for those articles is terrible—someone should try to do better or nominate them. ^Bongo_matic 04:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• " The sources used in this article are" almost exclusively MyBB's own website. How does that meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not every source is from their website. There is coverage which some have said is notable elsewhere. http://www.forum-software.org/mybb/review for example. Dream Focus 08:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bongo: I think I failed to make my point. I didn't mean to say the article should be kept because of the other articles (which is of course not a good justification, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). What I meant to say was that there are no highly reliable sources in this area, but there are a number of relatively reliable sources (used in the article or mentioned above by User:MyBB Tim), which can show that MyBB is in widespread use and is comparable to the other well known softwares in the same field, so it is as much notable as other competitors and deserves an article on Wikipedia. huji—TALK 02:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No matter how popular something may be, being the subject of an article requires coverage by reliable third-party sources (WP:V#Notability). Such sources are not in evidence. The ones cited in the article are not by third parties and/or not reliable because they are self-published (blogs, forums etc.), including the forum-software.org link given above.  Sandstein  09:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PH(x)[edit]

PH(x) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable; bong and water pipe cover the subject adequately. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article reads like a marketing brochure and completely fails to establish notability of this distributor of bongs. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Business making bongs. Claim to significance by being the original innovator of the percolator, a small additional sub chamber within the main chamber of the water pipe that provides in-line smoke-water interaction via heat exchange and dissolution probably isn't enough to make the history books. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl F. Moxey[edit]

Carl F. Moxey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Orphan article that does not meet Notability standards for academics. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apart from being a cat lover like all good Wikipedians, notability is not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. H-index of 1 (WoS) and no other apparent claim to passing any of the other notability criteria. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hayes (ice hockey)[edit]

Jimmy Hayes (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, and the article does not provide reliable sources to show that the subject meets WP:GNP. Dkchana (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Re-create when he meets it. Patken4 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as creator, my bad. One AHL game used to be enough for notability, but that appears to no longer be the case. Teemu08 (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Patken4. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources on lidos[edit]

List of sources on lidos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

We do not need a list of non-notable publications. They can be used to expand the article on lido, but as none are notable in their own right, this is a bibliography rather than an encyclopedic list. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly suggest this be userfied. DS (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete At the very least, it looks like a link farm, or a directory type list. This falls well outside the normal "list" criteria. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's more of a bibliography than a link farm, but either way does not pass our notability guidelines for lists. --NellieBly (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of reading materials on a topic (i.e. a bibliography). Indiscriminate due to length, and the result of original research regarding which sources to include/exclude. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Morter[edit]

Tobias Morter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Refs provided do not mention subject, and there is not "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" as needed for an article.  —SMALLJIM  20:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit of advertising: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearse dynasty is closely related to this topic. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable at best, joke at worst. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• deletion not nesersary i am currently deleting infomation that i can find any references for or any websites with infomation. Of course if i find anything refs will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahahahg123 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Hahahahahg123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Editing complete"' i have removed infomation that was wrong or i could find any infomation about it. But i can see significant references to make article notable. Deletion not nessersary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahahahg123 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Hahahahahg123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• "' Deletion notice remove"' I will take the step to remove the notice, I found suitable reasons for this. Noted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hahahahahg123 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Hahahahahg123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• No one's going to remove the notice until this discussion is complete. Zakhalesh (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a lack of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom - frankie^MR (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, individual does not pass WP:GNG. Looks like advertising to me. --NellieBly (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: certain users participating in this debate are confirmed socks (quack quack). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dingdongdingdong123/Archive. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Cheatham[edit]

Donna Cheatham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

High school basketball coaches are not notable. Dkchana (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There's no per se rule that high school basketball coaches are not notable. While 99.99% probably aren't this one is. Cheatam is the winningest women's high school basketball coach in Indiana history, won coach of the year honors 35 times, and has been inducted into Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame. HOF Profile here. She's also been the subject of extensive, non-trivial media coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG regardless of her occupation. Examples include: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Cbl62 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. HS basketball coaches with coverage satisfying the GNG are notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Whole New Cynicism[edit]

A Whole New Cynicism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I cannot find any reliable sources indicating notability for this film. It appears to me to be a Glasgow student film about a non-notable artist — whose own bio article was A7 speedied — trying to paint drunk. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another hard to search phrase because it is used generically often enough. The film, however, doesn't seem to have ANY news, and only a couple of trailers via misc. websites. Would think this fails WP:MOVIE handily. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This is the sort of article that makes me think the A9 speedy category should apply to any work with no evidence of notability, not just musical recordings. How on earth did this survive a year and a half? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pearse dynasty[edit]

Pearse dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neologism referenced only from other Wikipedia articles, where the mention about this term has been introduced by the creator of this article. Zakhalesh (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pearse family dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — Duplicate article, same reasons. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobias Morter which is related to this subject. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability, and also unreferenced. Mr. Credible (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator comments: the creator has been adding references to various websites, claiming a connection in the article text but as none of the websites had any information about the "dynasty", I removed the refs. Please make sure that the references given actually support the claims of the article when reviewing. Zakhalesh (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Pearce dynasty: I have known about the family for many years and i can tell you they are infact a dynasty. They are relitivly low key but they are soon to set up a page on "Tumblr" and soon a website. Also they are set to open there stately home in Oxfordshire in Eynsham called chesney's on Cassington Road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikikingqueen123 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Wikikingqueen123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately Chesneys on Newland Steeet, not Cassington Road, is a farmhouse rebuilt in 1898 [6], not a stately home. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable at best, hoax at worst. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability. References given are not reliable sources, and I have seen no evidence of any.  Chzz  ►  22:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for a lack of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Certain users participating in this debate have been blocked for sock puppetry: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dingdongdingdong123/Archive. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This dynasty has no notability; references are, as said above, created from whole cloth. --NellieBly (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure).  --Lambiam 18:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party (disambiguation)[edit]

British National Party (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnecessary page as only the current party of this name has its own article, the three slightly obscure defunct parties of this name do not, they are dealt with in the article History of British fascism since 1945. PatGallacher (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There should be some way for a user who ends up at the main article to find information on the smaller parties, even if they don't have articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But surely there is, see the hatnote at British National Party. PatGallacher (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The three (well, two) redirects allow users to jump right to the sections in question. I personally find "...see British National Party (1942), British National Party (1960s), and British National Party (1982)" ungainly as a hatnote. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on second thoughts I withdraw this nomination, although I think the article and the article on British fascism since 1945 could both do with some cleanup. PatGallacher (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's actually enough information on the first two (though not on the 1982 one) to split them off into small, stubby articles. That would make a dab page less questionable, as well. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note All but the 1982 installation had separate articles until User:Wipsenade suddenly decided to merge a bunch of articles into this one he created. Personally I cannot see why this was done and I can find no consensus discussion where it was agreed to merge all these articles, a lot of which I created. I for one would like to see them all restored and History of British fascism since 1945 cut back quite a bit to just give a basic overview rather than serve as a grand merger of a number of notable groups. Keresaspa (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but not necessarily as-is. I agree that the recent changes have made navigation more difficult. If the merger sticks, then this page should probably be converted to a redirect. But given the age of the page and the complexity of the merger debate, the pagehistory should remain available as an aid to future editors. I have no strong opinion on the optimal redirect target, however. Rossami (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dresden Files. No sourced material to merge, so redirecting. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Days (novel)[edit]

Cold Days (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable novel that is set to be released next year. Doesn't meet any of the criteria set out at WP:NBOOKS and I've had a search for significant coverage in reliable sources and I can't find anything that comes close to satisfying WP:GNG (only twitter/blog mentions). This novel may very well be notable in the future, but it certainly isn't now. Jenks24 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Dresden Files until notability is reached. LadyofShalott 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The_Dresden_Files#Books_in_the_series, speedy close this discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Voldavia[edit]

Legends of Voldavia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-significant new (Nov 2010) book. Lots of commercial listings, little else. Page creator reversed PROD, replaced copyvio text. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm finding tons of places to BUY the book, but no news, no other books reference it, no reviews from WP:RS. Too new to be notable at this point. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-significant, per above. Noom _talk ^stalk 01:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grady Reddick[edit]

Grady Reddick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is about a state court judge in Screven County, Georgia, United States. It is my understanding that a state court in the US is one of general jursidiction, and so being a judge on such a court would not give rise to notability as it would for a justice of a Supreme Court. I can find no reliable sources writing about this judge that would satisfy general notability. As an elected judge, I looked at whether he qualifies under the criteiria for politicians, but his court is not one with jursidiction over the state so he does not meet these inclusion criteria either. Whpq (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Found a passing mention in two places, just names on a list, but no in-depth coverage. No inherent notability, not sure anything I found would even reliably verify the primary claims of the article. --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gnews confirm role as judge [7], but nothing about him as a person, his career etc. fails WP:BIO, LibStar (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 16:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phyrexia[edit]

Phyrexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fictional location from a trading card game. Tagged as unsourced since 2008, failing WP:V and WP:N, and also fails WP:GAMEGUIDE as a completely in-universe description (i.e., written as though it were factual) of a game concept.  Sandstein  17:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination --Melaen (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If this article is to be deleted, shall we also delete the articles for other planes in Magic: The Gathering? Kamigawa, Rath (plane), Mercadia, Rabiah the Infinite, Ravnica (plane), and Shandalar? Yonskii (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That would require separate discussions.  Sandstein  19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that it would require separate discussions. Maybe separate for WP:Verifiability and WP:Gameguide, but definitely not for WP:Notability. Albeit, Phyrexia is arguable more notable than those other locations. But at the very least, other articles, such as Middle-Earth should be considered. Unless you can definitively prove from policy that such considerations do not matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagecko (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• While deletion would indeed require separate discussions, merging or redirection would not. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this and other fictional locations into something along the lines of List of locations in Magic: the Gathering. Lack of notability for an individual fictional element is insufficient grounds for deletion when an appropriate merge target exists or is articulable. Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the Google Books link above turns up a number of hits that appear to be non-vanity press books; whether they are RS or primary remains to be seen. Astonishingly enough, Google NEWS turns up several hits for the term in apparent RS coverage of Magic: The Gathering tournaments. Does not appear that BEFORE was followed by the nominator... Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unverifiable content should not be retained, whether in this or another article. Per WP:BURDEN, it is your responsibility to cite sources for unsourced content that you would like to keep, not mine.  Sandstein  19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please cite which content in the article is unverifiable. Have you personally tried to source it and failed? Note that primary sources are perfectly adequate for meeting WP:V. Note that WP:BURDEN only applies to specific article content--WP:BEFORE applies to deletion discussions, and governs this conversation. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of it. WP:V defines "verifiability", in its first sentence, as "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". Because there are no references in the article, readers cannot make this check and the content is therefore unverifiable until it is sourced. WP:BURDEN is part of a core policy and applies to all discussions about whether or not to retain article content for lack of sources. I have performed the usual Google searches, but have not immediately found reliable third-party sources that could make this subject and this particular content verifiable and notable. If you find any, please feel free to cite them in the article.  Sandstein  20:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you ever looked at WP:PRIMARY? Your above comment seems to betray a profound lack of understanding of the actual policy regarding usage of primary sources. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am familiar with that section of policy, which begins: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", and continues: "Do not base articles entirely on primary sources." This is also reflected in WP:V#Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This matches what I've said above: No secondary sources means no article. In view of this, I am not entirely certain that it is my position that reflects a less than optimal understanding of core policy.  Sandstein  20:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Shall I catalogue the deficiencies? 1) Fictional elements can almost always be merged, rather than deleted. The entire nomination ignores that WP:ATDpreferred outcome. 1a) or redirected, for that matter. 2) Unverifiable asserts that the statements cannot be sourced anywhere. Phyrexia is one game setting for a product published by Hasbro; there's no question that it exists as a fictional element based on the published primary sources. Independence from primary sources is an element of notability, not verifiability. 3) You appear to have overlooked the various reliable sources I've documented above. Just because most of them don't deal extensively enough with the topic to establish notability doesn't mean they are inapplicable as verification. Mind you, I'm not arguing that the article be kept as a separate topic, but you're arguing for deletion well beyond what is actually supportable by policy. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Existence is not the same as verifiability. "Unverifiable" asserts that readers cannot "check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" (as per the definition in WP:V given above) i.e., that it is unsourced. That's why the policy says that challenged material "must be attributed, through an inline citation that directly supports the material" and not "... must be supported by a source that exists somewhere". In other words, verifiability does not assert, as you believe, that "the statements cannot be sourced anywhere", as that would require proving a negative, which is rarely possible. The verifiability requirement exists for the benefit of readers, not editors, and therefore it requires that the sources be actually cited in the article, not that they theoretically exist somewhere.

                  In this case, the sources (if there are any) are not cited in the article, hence the content is unverifiable (for readers!) until somebody adds the actual reliable sources, not merely vague references to WP:GHITS, to the actual article. Until this happens, the content is unsuitable for retention whether as a separate article or as part of another article. To the extent the content is made verifiable by adding reliable sources, even primary ones, it could be merged. But the WP:BURDEN to do the source-adding rests on those who wish to retain the content.  Sandstein  22:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                  • Readers can (by following links, using Google, Internet catalogs, etc.) ascertain that Phyrexia is in fact a published fictional element. this is a good example. Hasbro is, per WP:SELFPUB, a perfectly fine reliable source for its own products despite that page being self-published. Even if we interpret V per your semantics, the content is still plenty verifiable. The fact that the article lacks direct links to sources, rather, means that the article isn't currently verified--in that it doesn't help the reader find the appropriate RS--but not that it is not verifiable. You arguing that sourcing doesn't exist to meet WP:V is both wrong and pointless: the real issue isn't V, which can be done at any point using links provided just like I did, but rather its standalone notability. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I agree that the lack of notability precludes the continued existence of a separate article. I also agree that there are probably primary sources out there somewhere that could be used for verification of at least the basics of this fictional concept (but not necessarily all of the current text). Where we disagree is whether the current material should be merged in its currently unsourced (but potentially sourceable) form. I believe it should not, because the plain wording of WP:V, cited above, says that contested material must be removed unless it is inline-sourced. By AfDing the article, I am contesting the entire material. It may therefore not be retained, not even via a merger, except to the extent it is first inline-sourced.  Sandstein  06:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Which would be fine, except that I haven't yet seen you contest anything. Simply noting that "this is unsourced and needs to be improved" is not contesting a statement. The alternative would be that any sentence, in any article, which doesn't have specific inline citation counts as "challenged or likely to be challenged" and must be removed. In fact, statements exist most articles, and that's perfectly fine until someone else says "that's wrong" (not "that's unsourced"). You're narrowly reading policies in a way that if applied would lead to unreasonable results inconsistent with community consensus. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete despite the little of value to save from this article, I am still left a little uneasy voting delete. Verifiability is easily met, and I have seen many articles survive with notability sources worse than a wired blog and an online magazine article, before mentioning the book references. There appears to be a release of something called new Phyrexia in June and with over 1.5 million google hits, I certainly don't have the time to check all the sources. While I don't think that WP:GAMEGUIDE strictly applies to boardgames the way that it has recently been applied, clearly the current article has WP:INUNIVERSE problems so should be deleted.Tetron76 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In universe problems can be fixed via editing--deletion is rarely the way forward if notability requirements are met. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree but I don't think that notability is currently met for its own article, and while it may be true that inuniverse can be fixed via editing I don't believe any of the current article would remain.Tetron76 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment while this may or may not be above WP:N (I've not looked at the sources yet), there exist an obvious merge target Plane_(Magic:_The_Gathering)#Phyrexia, and so at the least this should be a merge and redirect. Hobit (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that the content is entirely unsourced for years now, failing WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Moving it elsewhere does not remedy that.  Sandstein  19:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you arguing that we should delete all articles which have lacked sources for years? Hobit (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If they are brought to AfD, and nobody can or cares to find appropriate sources during the AfD, yes. After all, verifiability is a core policy, and we do not indefinitely keep content that does not comply with core policy. And articles can be userfied and restored if sources are later found.  Sandstein  21:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is hard, but WP:V is pretty darn easy. Other than the primary sources we have sites like [8] which focus heavily on topics like this. Is that site reliable? In it's area it appears to be the single most reliable source of information there is. And no, I'd no idea such a thing existed, I stopped playing Magic more than 15 years ago. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V may be easy, but it requires that the sources be actually added to the article. That website looks to be self-published and thus presumably unreliable.  Sandstein  06:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it's likely to get things wrong in it's own little domain? SPSes are often problematic from a WP:N viewpoint, but in their own areas they are sources of highly reliable information. Hobit (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when people read policies through the lens of language nuances rather than common sense. A manufacturer's catalog or product specification is generally the best and most reliable source of basic info about a product: plenty fine for V, inapplicable for N, and not reliably NPOV. Using sources appropriately depends on knowing which sources can be trusted to authenticate which statements. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't want unsourced material to be taken from one article and stuck in another. We want sourced content. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and since when does a merge outcome require that unsourced content be "stuck" in a target article? If you have a problem with the fact that the article can be sourced but currently isn't, that's a different matter. That would be a "redirect until someone sources it" outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As stated in the nomination, the article fails verifiability and notability. It also is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context. With no references independent of the subject from third-party sources to presume notability, there is no basis to keep the article. I do not believe that a merge is an acceptable option because the text in the article is a detailed plot-only description of a fictional work and Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. I also do not believe that the topic Phyrexia is needed to understand the card game Magic: The Gathering, so the content of the article can be perfectly omitted. A simple mention in a list (as it is right now in Plane (Magic: The Gathering)#Artificial Planes) is more than enough. In my opinion, all text in the nominated article is material more in line with a game guide than Wikipedia. While it may have several Google hits, existence is not the same as notability. Jfgslo (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The rough consensus in this discussion is that the subject does not currently meet the general notability guideline or WP:POLITICIAN. I or any another admin will be happy to restore the article should the subject win the election or otherwise become notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario F. Ferri[edit]

Mario F. Ferri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article exists principally because of Mr. Ferri's status as an unelected candidate in the current Canadian federal election — it does, however, contain a bit of "sourced to local media" background on his term as a city councillor in Vaughan, Ontario prior to his current run (although much more of the article is sourced to primary sources rather than media.) That said, Vaughan is not a large enough city for its city councillors to earn a presumption of "inherent notability" just for being city councillors; per established prior consensus, Vaughan's city councillors (including Ferri) all existed only as redirects to Vaughan City Council, not as standalone articles. Delete this title (nobody's ever going to search for it with the middle initial) and convert the uninitialed redirect at Mario Ferri back to a Vaughan City Council redirect (which it was until it was changed to point here instead.) If he wins the election, then he can have a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat, your comment that "This article exists principally because of Mr. Ferri's status as an unelected candidate in the current Canadian federal election" seems to be based on your own an assertions rather than facts. If you have any facts upon which you base this opinion, please provide them. After reading the article, I have a few comments. Firstly, vaughan councillors - such as Michael DiBiase, Linda Jackson, Maurizio Bevilacqua, all have wikipedia pages. Further, councillors Vito Spatafora, Brenda Hogg, Dave Barrow of Richmond Hill, a city to the east of Vaughan, which has a smaller profile and a lower population and H. James Jones, and Frank Scarpitti of Markham which is of a similar size as Vaughan, all have Wikipedia Pages. So it seems as though the assertion that Vaughan is not a big enough city for its city councillors to earn a presumption of "inherent notability" just for being city councillors may be incorrect. I have also looked up information on Vaughan and it has a population of 280,000 people making it one of the largest Cities in Canada. Besides this, the subject of the article seems to be the recipient of a number of awards and may be notable on that accord as well under wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would suggest leaving the page up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.248.54.125 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been that city councillors of cities this size are not inherently notable. This was recently reaffirmed with a city councillor of Regina, which is far more regional importance than Vaughan. Additionally have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why the fact that other similar articles may exist isn't relevant in this discussion. Ravendrop 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong about several of these: Jackson, Bevilacqua, Barrow, DiBiase and Scarpitti are or were mayors, not regular city councillors, and as such have a different standard of notability ("regional prominence") than city councillors do ("major metropolitan city"); Bevilacqua, in fact, was previously a federal MP, as was Jones, so they get to have articles on those grounds regardless of the notability or non-notability of their current municipal offices. Hogg does not have an article; she just has a redirect to Richmond Hill Town Council. The only one, in fact, that you're correct about is Vito Spatafora — and even that article only exists because somebody arbitrarily reverted it after I redirected him to the city council, so we won't have an independent article about him for very much longer, either

Hopefully you read the article and are aware that the subject was a 'Regional' Councillor, and as such enjoys 'regional prominence' - probably more than many mayors. Your comment that just because someone is a mayor makes them more notable than a regional councillor is just plain silly. Their powers are the same, they are voted in by the entire city, etc. etc. etc. According to your logic, the Mayor of a small rural township would be more notable then a regional councillor of one of canada's largest and fastest growing city's. There is a logical leap there. And please respect people leaving comments on here - your tone in that response is uncalled for in my opinion. Perhaps whom ever wrote that was referring to 'Council Members' when they wrote councillors - rather then specifying which one is a mayor and which one is not. Polyscigrad (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the city that has to have regional prominence, not the person. That is, the mayor of Ottawa or Sudbury or Barrie or Vaughan can have an article; the mayor of Adjala-Tosorotontio or Orangeville or Georgina not necessarily. It's the prominence of the city, not the prominence of the individual, that determines the notability of mayors — the prominence of the individual would be an utterly meaningless criterion that wouldn't exclude anybody at all. "Regional prominence" isn't the ideal wording, I grant you, and I'll pursue rewording the criterion — but generally, the standard that's actually applied by most AFDers when a mayor comes up for debate on here is that the city has a population in the vicinity of 50,000 or more; the only reason the policy criterion isn't worded that way is because policy statements aren't supposed to cite arbitrary cutoffs. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the part about "principally because of Mr. Ferri's status as an unelected candidate in the current Canadian federal election", the facts are these: the current article was created on March 29, two days after he got the Liberal nomination in the current federal election. Before that, he was a stable redirect to Vaughan City Council for over five years. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he did not have an article on here until recently is rather due to the fact that Ferri was not allowed to have an article on here due to some squabbling between some illigitimate wikipedia contributors and other wikipedians that resulted in all vaughan articles being subject to oversight - until very recently. Polyscigrad (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that oversight could easily have included keeping the article but imposing strict NPOV monitoring and editor bans and page protection. It went to "redirect to the city council" instead not because of the edit war itself — which had other solutions — but because there was a clear consensus established that Vaughan is not large enough for its city councillors to be considered notable just for being city councillors. (And regional/county councillors aren't notable just for holding that office, either; the lowest level of office at which a person is considered automatically notable on here just for holding a political office is provincial MPP.) And I was one of the administrators involved in sorting out the whole VaughanWatch mess in the first place, so I hardly need to be schooled on what did or didn't happen. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG handily by virtue of the awards he has received. Didn't bother with checking to see if he passed WP:POLITICIAN since it was necessary in this case. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't suggest that he's ever won any award that would confer inherent notability on him just because of the award itself. The jubilee medals are a program of volunteer recognition which every individual community across Canada has the discretion to present to numerous local community builders and/or heroes and/or nice kids who walk Old Lady Szumigalski's dog every afternoon, for a total of tens of thousands of awardees each time there's a medal program, so a person is not encyclopedically notable just for winning one. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. The limited coverage is all routine or passing or primary. The awards he received are minor and do not confer inherent notability. (the 125th anniversary medal was given to 42,000+ people, similar numbers for the QEII medal). Ravendrop 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep PassesWP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. I think it passes both of these tests.

I want to begin this comment with this: Bearcat suggested "If he wins the election, then he can have a standalone article." Well, the article was suggested for deletion on April 15 - the ten day discussion period will end on April 25 - and, the election, is one week later on May 2 - as such, if it is decided that the article should be deleted, I would suggest leaving the article up until after the election so it saves everyone the hassle of deleting it and then re-writing it/posting it. Can we have consensus on that?

On the other points - some have suggested that his awards are not particularly notable. To those I suggest two things: Firstly, he has received 3 consecutive government awards (the Corps D’Elite, confederation, and jubiliee awards) at each time they were given out. This should raise the noteworthyness of him receiving these awards - while many were given out, how many people have recieved all three? Secondly, is the exclusiveness of an award the only benchmark used to determine its notability? - I do not see anything referencing this on the notability pages - as such, it seems as though this is being read in. Rather, the test is whether the award is Significant and Well-Known. For those in the public service industry, not only are the Corps D’Elite, confederation, and jubiliee awards well-known and significant, so too are the beacon award and the silverkeystone award - and these are much more exclusive. I understand that not all people know of these awards, just like many outside the movie industry would not know the The MPSE Award or the TFCA Award - while for those in the movie industry, they are well known and incredibly significant. My point here is that the awards that the subject has received are significant and well-known in the public service industry, in fact, I would suggest they are among the most significant and well known, in their industry - public service. This must be taken into consideration. While the subject did not win an Oscar or the order of canada - we should not define the definition of significant and well-known awards so narrowly.

Regarding the news coverage: I have added 13 newspaper articles on the subject. These articles do not mention the subject in passing - rather they are full articles on the subject, his biography, and his work. I received the articles, and many more, after having contacted the subject about 2 weeks ago for more articles on him that may not be available online after a suggestion of this by another wikipedia member. Polyscigrad (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)— Polyscigrad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It also wouldn't be at all difficult to recreate the article if he wins the current election; for one thing, administrators have the power to restore deleted articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Coverage is local or passing in nature and the awards he received are minor and do not confer inherent notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. The awards he received are not significant. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for a general article supported with multiple reliable references per GNG. This appears to be a case of a deletion nomination possibly posted by a supporter of Ferri's political rival. Smacks of censorship, highly undemocratic and contrary to Wikipedia's stated goals. HarryZilber (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the ad hominem assertions. It's a case of Wikipedia administrator enforcing Wikipedia inclusion policies; if the highest level of elected office that a politician has actually attained is a city council seat in a mid-sized non-metropolitan city, then they simply don't meet WP:GNG regardless of what political party they are or aren't associated with. And I've deleted or proposed the deletion of articles about unelected candidates from all political parties in the current election, including the party I personally plan to vote for, so there's no "bias" issue to be had here — nor is it "undemocratic" or "contrary to Wikipedia's stated goals". Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So obviously your deletion of articles of people you don't agree with supports Wikipedia's goals of "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.". I and others are truly unimpressed. While Wikipedia is not a democracy, its stated goals don't include wiping out articles of politicians you don't agree with. At one point Barack Obama was a politician of similar stripe to Mr. Ferri and the other Liberal Party and Green Party candidates you're trying to erase off Wikipedia. I suggest you're doing a great disservice to the broader Wikipedia readership, and since you're Wikilawyering notability more cites to reliable sources will be added. HarryZilber (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He is not a politician I disagree with. I'm not Canadian, I've never been to Canada, and I have no opinion of this person one way or the other. I do, however, have an opinion on the article, and that opinion is that the article is too soon to be an article, at best. Using your example, if Barack Obama had a Wikipedia article before any notability, it would have been deleted as well, and then recreated when he became notable. I would suggest you assume good faith in your fellow editors, and not assume they have an agenda simply because they have an opinion on an AfD that differs from you own. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Harryzilber, frustration can make one say all manner of regrettable things, but these allegations of censorship and political bias are not only unsupported they are uncivil and are disagreeable. I see nothing that even remotely supports your allegations. You are in your right to disagree with another editor, but not at the expense of civility nor in such a disagreeable manner. Rather than further dilute this page with unsupported statements, I suggest you take this to the individual talk pages. ttonyb (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• HarryZilber, nobody (including me) said anything about disagreeing with his politics — and you don't know what my political views are anyway, so you have no grounds to assume anything about whether I agree with Mr. Ferri's politics or not. But that's simply not the issue here: any politician, regardless of party affiliation or ideology, can have an article if they've held a notable political office, and any politician, regardless of party affiliation or ideology, cannot have an article if they haven't. It's really that simple, and has nothing to do with who likes or doesn't like his political views. It's not his views that determine whether he qualifies for an article or not; it's whether or not he's actually held a political office that's notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, and there's a longstanding prior consensus that a seat on Vaughan's city council is not a notable office. If he wins a seat in the federal election, an article will be created in due time (and probably by me anyway, since I'm the guy who usually starts most of the new stubs about newly elected Canadian MPs or MLAs.) But until he's actually won that seat, he simply has not yet held a position that would make him notable per WP:POLITICIAN — and that's true no matter what party he's running for. Bearcat (talk) 09:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage appears to be local in scope at best, and the awards do not appear particularly significant, which makes passing WP:GNG questionable.  Sandstein  10:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Greer[edit]

Ron Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:N, WP:V, unsourced BLP. Can't find reliable sources on which to evidence the notability of this photographer under the generali notability guideline, no apparent claims of notability under WP:ARTIST. joe decker^{talk to me} 17:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability, I can't find a single source excluding the subject's webpage. Seemlingly no third-party coverage, and certainly insufficient. Nothing else in the article to work with as regards to notability (e.g. projects). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unable to find sources. Once deleted, redirect to Ron Greer (disambiguation). Pburka (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bushclosure[edit]

Bushclosure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page is filled with original research. The fact that there are sources does not mean that it is not original research. A google search for bushclosure reveals few results other than a comment on a news post on this page http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/GoBarbara/joe-miller-health-care-federal-government_n_755188_63068120.html. I believe this violates WP:ONEDAY and WP:OR Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the title enjoyed popular usage, I'd suggest redirecting to Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. But it doesn't. 99.149.87.151 (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable neologism. I don't see where any of the cited sources use this neologism. The term gets hardly any Google hits, and almost half of those are from Wikipedia itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an essay-like biased article, failing WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NPOV. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – nn neologism and repackaging of existing material unrelated to term. ttonyb (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find anything to even begin to source the article.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Bellinge[edit]

Rhys Bellinge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Author of a couple of scientific papers, but that's about it. Per Monash University, may have still been working on PhD in 2010. Spammy and non-notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not appear to fulfill any of the relevant criteria of WP:AUTHOR. The published papers would seem to be a standard part of many PhDs, and are not exceptional enough. No apparent coverage in other sources, other than the papers themselves. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not pass either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Almost nothing in GoogleScholar and nothing in Googlebooks and no other evidence of notability. I trimmed some puff language from the article but it is still basically a puff piece. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Had my own look for sources and was unable to find anything that shows Bellinge passes WP:GNG or any of the subject-specific guidelines that might apply to him. Jenks24 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. H-index of 2 (WoS) and no other apparent claim to passing any of the other notability criteria. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fibonacci number#Origins. Consensus is that this should not be a separate article. What, if anything, should be merged is something for the expert editors to discuss. I'm pointing the redirect at the section that discusses this topic, but the redirect target can be changed as may be necessary.  Sandstein  10:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gopala–Hemachandra number[edit]

Gopala–Hemachandra number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The term used here, "Gopala–Hemachandra number", is a seldom-used neologism and does not really make sense anyway; under the definition in the article, every number is a "Gopala–Hemachandra number". Most of the content of the article is peripheral historical discussion of Indian mathematicians' contributions to the study of the Fibonacci sequence, all of which is discussed in more detail at Fibonacci number. The remaining verifiable information in the article amounts to a single sentence noting that the term "Gopala–Hemachandra sequence" is sometimes used for a certain type of sequence; this single sentence could easily be incorporated into Fibonacci number if desired. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that while the main claim of the article, "A Gopala–Hemachandra number is a term in a sequence of the form …", may appear to be well cited, this appearance is misleading. Two of the cited papers are unpublished, and at least one of the cited papers does not actually use the phrase. The currency of the term "Gopala–Hemachandra number" appears to be extremely limited. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The main point of having this article appears to be as a content fork from Fibonacci number that promotes a neologism assigning Gopala and Hemachandra credit for the Fibonacci numbers rather than Fibonacci; the differences in actual content (a linear combination of Fibonacci numbers rather than the Fibonacci numbers directly) are not significant enough to warrant a separate article. All three of these people made relevant early contributions, but our purpose here should not be to change terminology to better suit our political whims, it should be to use the terminology that is in place, and rightly or wrongly the in-place terminology is Fibonacci number. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep reliable sources describe it as a larger set of numbers of which "Fibonacci numbers are a special case", so it should have an article on its own. The earliest reference to use "Gopala–Hemachandra number" in the Wikipedia article is from 2004, so it is it not a neologism. It looks like this is going to be one of those articles like first flight and invention of calculus where people are going to argue endlessly about priority, but deletion is not the solution. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The larger set of numbers also has a much more well known name: Integer. Every integer can be represented in the form described here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your using the classic WP:Truth over WP:Verifiability arguments. Publish your counterarguments and they can be cited in the Wikipedia article or find an author that has published what you are arguing and it can be added to the article. We all know that Yetis and the Loch Ness monster and alien abductions do not exist, yet ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so here's an argument based on WP:V: there is no source that actually uses the phrase "Gopala–Hemachandra number". Some of them use the phrase "Gopala–Hemachandra sequence" but that has a slightly different meaning. And if you want to make the article be about sequences satisfying the same recurrence relation as the Fibonacci numbers then Google scholar has a total of four papers that use the phrase "Gopala-Hemachandra" in any sense and 353 articles that use the phrase "Fibonacci recurrence" so again making this separate from Fibonacci isn't supported by the preponderance of sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "It has been suggested that the name Gopala-Hemachandra numbers be used for the general sequence: a, b, a+b, a+2b, 2a+3b, 3a+5b, … for any pair a, b, which for the case a=1, b=1 represents the Fibonacci numbers." (my emphasis added) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. These sequences are exactly the sequences that satisfy the Fibonacci recurrence. If we are to have an article about them them it should be under Fibonacci recurrence. But if you read the actual content of the present article, it's not about these sequences, it's about the early history of Fibonacci numbers, covered in less detail than the Fibonacci number article itself covers the same subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. GScholar search turns up enough usage of the term to justify an encyclopedia article. Rename the article to "Gopala-Hemachandra numbers" (plural) or "Gopala-Hemachandra sequence", since referring to single number this way doesn't seem to make since, and the scholarly usages appear confined to such plural references. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would find your argument more convincing if it addressed the relative number of references that use a *different* term for the same subject, rather than merely counting the absolute number of references (four) that use this specific term. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: One of the references (Tetlow) notes the phrase "Fibonacci sequence" is used to describe the subject of the article. So it seems that if the concept being defined has a standard name at all it is "Fibonacci sequence" and not "Gopala–Hemachandra number" or even "Gopala–Hemachandra sequence". Most of the content of the article seems to be a rehash of the the "Origins" section of Fibonacci number with any mention of Fibonacci & Lucas removed. So I have to agree with David Eppstein in that it's a content fork and the name is a neologism. In other words the material already exists in other articles where it can be found more easily.--RDBury (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Fibonacci number. The claim was made that "GScholar search turns up enough usage of the term ..." That is strange. For me the Google scholar search for "Gopala–Hemachandra number" (with the quote signs) results in 'Your search - "Gopala–Hemachandra number" - did not match any articles.' The search "Gopala–Hemachandra numbers" gives exactly one hit: the sentence by Kak also quoted in our article: "It has been suggested ..." (by whom?) – not in an arxiv paper, but in a contribution to the 2010 book Ancient Indian Leaps into Mathematics, published by Birkhäuser/Springer.[9] One "reliable" hit does not notability make. There are a few more hits for just "Hemachandra numbers", which define this as the name under which the Fibonacci sequence was known in India, and also a few hits for "(Gopala–)Hemachandra sequence". Enough to establish that this term can be mentioned in the Origin section of Fibonacci number, but not enough for an article on its own.  --Lambiam 19:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. This search [10] turns up four occurrences on the first page, in slightly different forms, with the contexts suggesting that some of the writers expected readers to find the phrase familiar. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge if proper Looks to be largely used as a term similar to with Fibonacci, and the article seems to be more an attempt to highlight the work of these earlier men in the development of the sequence than an actual article on it. While there does seem to be a small amount of coverage that uses the term to mean a sequence with no specific starting number, this really isn't a significant enough distinction to warrant a separate article, and there's not really enough for a merge to be totally necessary. Plus, it seems that people still use the term Fibonacci even when the sequence doesn't necessarily start with 1 anyway.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge and redirect. A lack of significant coverage in reliable sources has been demonstrated by the various searches described above, therefore a stand alone article is not justified. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, per David Eppstein. Paul August ☎ 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I tried merge and redirect once before, but it didn't stick. I brought the article to AFD this time because I didn't see any reason why a merge-and-redirect would be more likely to stick this time around. —Mark Dominus (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The subject of the article are sequences usually known as "Fibonacci sequences" (whereas the Fibonacci numbers form the Fibonacci sequence, with the definite article). The term "Gopala–Hemachandra number" is a clear neologism. I only get four (!) scholar hits for the phrase "Gopala–Hemachandra". By contrast, Fibonacci sequences (under that name) are among the most thoroughly studied number sequences since antiquity. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The term is a neologism and it's not Wikipedia's place to promote it. These sequences are nothing more than linear recurrence relations of signature (1,1) and are quite well-studied. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and also redirect/merge Gopala (mathematician) (which has almost no info) to Acharya Hemachandra. The existing mention of Gopala and Hemachandra in the article about the Fibonacci sequence, with xrefs to Gopala and Hemachandra, is fine. Remove the "Gopala-Hemachandra number" neologism (or inline-cite and describe its usage as a minority view) from the Hemachandra article, but describe the recurrence there as an antecedent of Fibonacci. Merge the stuff about "the prosodist Pingala..." from Gopala-Hemachandra number to the Hemachandra article too. The "Gopala-Hemachandra number" article's presentation of a Gopala-Hemachandra number as some kind of accepted mathematical concept is highly bogus. I think the article is basically soapboxing some kind of Indian nationalism, sort of like Jagged 85's stuff about Muslim inventions. If the article is kept, it should be rewritten as "... is a term used by a few authors to mean...". (edited) 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Weldridge[edit]

Sean Weldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unsourced biography. The sources given don't actually mention Weldridge, and Google gives no relevant results. Has claims of notability, but no indication of actually meeting those claims. Huon (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article lacks sources and subject clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article's sources don't actually mention Weldridge, and no additional sources were found via Google. No indication of notability. Huon (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Oops, !voted on my own nomination... Huon (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Claims of notability are not met per WP:RS. The links are to the same blog. No further references found. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (twice!). No clear notability is present. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myth World Cup[edit]

Myth World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Deletion Support. I think it's absolutely clear why this article should be deleted, but I'll just sum it up: First off, the article has NOTHING to underscore how or why the subject is notable. Second, none of the information is attributed to a source. Third, the vast majority of the info is original research. I think this is one of those articles that would be a great example of what WP:NOT is all about. It really makes me cringe to think that this article has existed since 2006. Eik Corell (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I might have said to merge into Myth II: Soulblighter Tournaments but there is no sourced information to merge, and almost no information period. No indication or claim of notability, but I don't think speedy would apply here. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Myth II: Soulblighter Tournaments article seems to be more of the same. No sources, just a whole lot of what Wikipedia is not. Rhyming aside, I think taking out that article on the same grounds as this one would only be logical. Eik Corell (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails notability for WP:Event and part of another online tourney.--Whiteguru (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 - urban dictionary predates, and there's no assertion of ownership - if it's from a deleted Wikipedia article it's still a copyright violation unless it can be properly attributed. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Indian Penis Size[edit]

Regional Indian Penis Size (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is un-encyclopedic, unreferenced and failed WP:Notability.. Previously tagged under CSD under blatant hoax criteria. An admin declined adding it should gain consensus on its deletion. mauchoeagle 02:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are three references (primary sources) in the article which appear to deal with the subject. It doesn't look like it's necessarily a hoax. I would prefer to see secondary sources to establish notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete nonsense. Reference [3] does not have the title stated and does not address the topic stated in any way. The table is at best original research with an unsupported explanation based on race. No evidence that a sensible article could be written on this topic. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - The title in question is referenced within the linked paper, this may have been a mistake on the editor's part. As it stands though, without secondary sources, this is WP:SYN... delete Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. (Note: Aside from the question of notability and synthesis, this sounds like a classic case where the very process of making a careful measurement might affect the thing being measured). Edison (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that even given their firm grasp of the subject, researchers could expect the probability of prolonged observations affecting the results to become quite large? Anarchangel (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- secondary sources have now been included and there are many research papers on this topic therefore I don't think this topic is 'complete nonsense'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.255.97 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm This does have sources now, but the question remains 'is the subject matter notable'? I can't help but to think yes, unfortunately, as the subject has been a topic for many, many years (in general, not in India in particular). My gut says "delete" but I can't find a rationale or criteria to delete. We can't delete because "the very process of making a careful measurement might affect the thing being measured" as that is making a judgement on the ability of the primary parties to do their jobs, bordering on wp:or/synth itself. Unless someone can kindly point to a valid rationale to delete (because I damn sure can't think of one), then I would have to say keep, out of fairness and objectivity. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could write hundreds of articles on "regional country penis size" or "regional country nose size" come to that. There is no evidence for a viable article relating to this particular country. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Other than being synthesis, (and the talk page seems to say that this is why the article exists, if I'm reading it correctly), I have concerns with copyright - the same material exists in the Urban Dictionary, [11] only is dated January 2011 (compared to April 2011 for this one). The Urban Dictionary doesn't claim copyright over the contents, but copyright does remain with the uploader, and it isn't clear that the uploader here is the same as the uploader at the Urban Dictionary. - Bilby (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a clear case of copyvio, wouldn't that be a speedy delete criteria? Dennis Brown (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes. But I'm not sure how clear a case it is, as normally copyvio comes form somewhere better than the urban dictionary. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio is copyvio, no person or site is "less worthy" of protection, and in the US, copyright is assumed (legally) unless explicitly stated otherwise. If it is dated prior to creation and doesn't have a waiver on file, AND the site doesn't have a copyright notice that would allow sharing, it is a copyvio, be it NYTimes or Urban Dictionary or your mother's blog. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this. :) My apologies, as I worded it badly - the issue is that I'm not sure how unambiguous it is, as the urban dictionary doesn't claim copyright on content, but allows copyright to remain with the original author. Thus there's a possibility that it isn't unambiguous per G12, but it is enough for me to choose to delete as it stands, and the main point is that there is no clear indicator that the original uploader to the urban dictionary is also the uploader here. At any rate, I've nominated for CSD on those grounds, and I'll see what the admin who checks it thinks. - Bilby (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Urban Dictionary is notoriously inaccurate and the datestamp on their page is as suspect as the rest of their content. I believe the Urban Dictionary entry to be a theft of an old Wikipedia page which has since been deleted. I am not retagging as G4, however, because I have not yet found that prior page. (It could, for example, have been removed under PROD which would not be eligible for G4.) Rossami (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then I'm forced back to keep, due to the nom being "Article is un-encyclopedic, unreferenced and failed WP:Notability", the first two of of which being non-reasons for AFD, and the third being mistaken, based on info above. Odd, but that is what we have. Any other shortcomings (OR/SYNTH) are issues for the talk page, not AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, delete as prohibited original synthesis regardless of the deletion method used in the probable earlier version since the sources which are cited do not in fact talk about regional differences. Once the prohibited synthesis is removed, there would be nothing left of the page. Rossami (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Taking data from different studies, which may well use different methodologies, and then using them as a basis of comparison is pretty well the definition of original research by synthesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, according to the article, average Indian one seems to be shorter than average of Caucasian male. But is a morbid topic itself, as well as speculations on it. Delete. I'd better to advice to author(s), if, of course, he(they) will accept any advice of mine, to write another article, name it Speculations on the theme of dick length. – George Serdechny 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete WP:OR. the biggest problem with the article is that the study about each region was conducted by a different group thus making comparison harder. As the title seems to imply that the theme of the article is comparison, the article, as it stands, is purely OR as wikipedians are the ones doing the job. However, OR issues might disappear if it is renamed to Indian penis size and the information is presented objectively. WP:Notability may become an issue then. --CarTick (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SCR Group[edit]

SCR Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Corporate spam, fails WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. Of the 15 references, 12 are from the website of the company or its affiliates. One is a press release, another a rather unusable string of quotes from its director, and a third a routine report about one of its subsidiaries. Further searching turned up nothing of relevance: for instance, Financiarul, the leading Romanian business newspaper, makes but passing mention of the firm.

I'd also like to point out that the article creator is User:Media-vani (sounds like a name for a PR person), whose only contributions here are related to the company; likewise on Romanian Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. This spree of spam should be halted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete due to violation of WP:CORP Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —71.232.99.144 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'd also like to point out that the article creator is User:Media-vani (sounds like a name for a PR person)" ... It's quite funny - My name is Adrian M Ivan (short Adi em Ivan - I think is clear now why I choose Media-vani name). I also think that here is wikipedia not wikileaks or FBI. Yes, I worked few years ago at Uzuc (members of SCR), now I'm retired. I believe that SCR deserve to be on wikipedia and wikipedia deserve to contained information about SCR, just as Uztel (I also worked there, and Uztel is not a member of SCR Group) or Banca Comerciala Romana or Curtea de Arges, Sinaia, Sighisoara, Jupiter - all of them being projects that I want to develop. But I think I will stop and I will use my time for something else. If you want to delete this page, fell free. I thought that this is a place where everybody contributes with useful and true informations, a place where we all learn from our mistakes with the support of the administrators (not inquisitors), but I think I was wrong. Thank you. Oh, and I dont't think that Financiarul is the leading Romanian business newspaper http://www.paginademedia.ro/2011/01/tabloidele-click-%c8%99i-libertatea-pierd-cititori/#more-24081. Media-vani (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This conglomerate business doesn't appear to have had significant effects on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quartz Scheduler (software)[edit]

Quartz Scheduler (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article is about a software program that does not indicate notability nor appear to be notable. It was nominated for CSD A7 by user:Whiteguru, but as it is not web content it does not qualify for that criterion (software products are explicitly excluded), it is not promotional and nor does it meet the definition of "no content" required for criterion A3 Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Due to no idea of notability, and lack of references to support the tiny amount of content there. Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would have speedily deleted this article about an open source job scheduling service on the grounds of lack of content or context. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then you would have made a serious error of judgement. If you read the definition of WP:CSD#A3 (no content) this doesn't actually meet the strict requirements of the criterion for having no content. Despite being short, there is more than enough context to make it clear what the subject of the article is, so WP:CSD#A1 cannot apply either. Thryduulf (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: 7 hits for "Quartz Scheduler" on Google News. --M4gnum0n (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I admit I sometimes lean towards the "Xanadu" ideal that everything should be a link. Perhaps the entry for this can be in the Quartz disambiguation page and the entry can not be a link to a page. Would that be sensible? I have no feeling either way about whether this should be deleted. RayKiddy (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't normally include entries with no links unless they are to explain the word/concept that is never going to be done in an article, but even then we normally link to Wiktionary and/or a related article (e.g. Rich). The place to ask though would be talk:Quartz (disambiguation). A more usual solution would be to redirect the title to the company that makes the product. In this case "Terracotta, Inc" don't have an article but their principle product Terracotta Cluster does, and I don't think it likely that the company will in the near future get a standalone article outside that. Would that article be a suitable redirect target for "Quartz Scheduler" (the "(software)" disambiguator isn't required) - I don't know. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Krastev[edit]

Stefan Krastev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

With greatest respect to Mr Krastev himself and to the editors of the article, I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent in either in a roman alphabet search for "Stefan Krastev" or a cyrillic alphabet search for "Стефан Кръстев". Please, and yet again, prove me wrong! Shirt58 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete As per lack of references for WP:BLP Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Tooga - BØRK! 12:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion established that the term is both notable, and sufficiently distinct from Inflation to warrant a standalone article. Further improvement may be desireable, but is not a reason to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inflationism[edit]

Inflationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be content fork from main Inflation article. None of the references cited actually use the archaic word 'Inflationism'. If the historical term is notable enough for a standalone article, suggest a wipe to stub, with a rewrite based on the historical use of the term. Alternatively, if the current topic is considered notable, a rename may be appropriate. LK (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 19:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't know enough about the topic to be able to judge if this is a notable concept, and if it is not, whether the content is worth being merged to some other place. I do see, though, that the (entirely unsourced) lead is confusing and, if taking literally, self-contradictory, and therefore unlikely to be representative of a definition of the subject as one might hope to find in reliable sources. First, if an inflationist economic policy is one that is predicted to lead to inflation, then surely an inflationist economist is an economist who advocates such a policy, which is not necessarily the same as advocating inflation; it all depends on whose prediction this is – of proponents of the policy, or of its opponents. Then, being told that "Mainstream economics advocates a low, stable level of inflation", the conclusion must be that (at least at a low level) mainstream economics is inflationist, but we are immediately informed that it is thus "largely opposed to inflationist policies".  --Lambiam 18:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, sorry about that – the position of mainstream economics (low, stable level of inflation as necessary evil, but opposed to high or unstable inflation or to deflation) is a bit tricky to explain. I’ve tried to clarify this in this revision – hope it’s clearer! —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Addition. All sources I could find in a quick search that define this term define it as a monetary policy, something that (I think) is not the same as an economic policy. The term appears to have a certain notability, though, if only in discussing "archaic" views (in particular Ludwig von Mises).  --Lambiam 18:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article has few sources and provides no evidence that this is a generally used term. Therefore should be deleted per WP:NEOLOGISM as a POV fork. TFD (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if you do the Google books and scholar searches, you get thousands of hits, with dozens going back to the 19th century and most of the rest to the 20th century, so it is not really a neologism. Having a lack of sources is not by itself a ground for deletion.  --Lambiam 21:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The contents of the article aren't something I would ordinarily jump to defend: they are poorly sourced and appear to advance a non-neutral point of view. (This is the case of many of our economics articles, since our economics editors unfortunately seem to be generally at the fringes of mainstream contemporary economics.) However, based on thousands of relevant hits in Google scholar and Google books to high quality sources, the notion seems to me to be clearly notable enough to warrant a separate article. It is certainly not a neologism on the one hand, and a few recent hits (e.g., [12]) also suggest that the term isn't totally archaic either. This leaves the matter of whether this is a "POV fork". That is less clear to me. It seems that the term "inflationism" is used largely in a polemic context to demonize certain policies advocated by Keynsian economists. (This impression is just based on a very superficial gestalt of the sources google turned up, so caveat emptor.) This may make it a little more difficult to have a neutral article about the concept (since, to oversimplify, it is a straw man used by one side in a debate), but I think it is definitely possible to do so. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge

  (I’m the original author of this article.)

  I started this article to provide some mainly historical summary of advocacy in favor of inflation, because inflation has been advocated in various historical instances – Free Silver, some Great Depression (notably debt deflation), and with the recent economic crisis – and “that policy will lead to inflation” is often used as a term of abuse.

  I wrote a separate article as per Wikipedia:Summary style to avoid bloating the main inflation article (which is already quite long). Further, positions actually advocating inflation (as opposed to being accused of such but rejecting it) are quite heterodox, so I thought it best to clearly separate it – no-one reading the main Inflation article should be misled into thinking that pro-inflation is a mainstream position, but conversely pro-inflation views should be addressed somewhere, and more coherently than occasional mentions at specific historical episodes.

  I didn’t mean to push a POV – I try to write sympathetically, presenting the arguments that people give, regardless of my personal views (e.g., when writing about Austrian economics or Marxist economics), so the article may well come across as pro-inflation itself, particularly the section “Contemporary advocacy” (I was just trying to report the arguments people made). Sorry about this, and please feel free to change it or to make suggestions or requests of me!

  As to the title “Inflationism”, this is a historical term (as noted above), and seemed the best title for the article (as opposed to “Historical pro-inflation views” or the like) – it’s etymologically neutral and has seen significant actual use.

  As to whether it is exclusively a monetary policy term, I’m no specialist, but my understanding is that it’s been used pretty generally, e.g. to attack the fiscal policies advocated by various underconsumptionist economists (you can think of these as Keynesian pre-history), though of course inflation and monetary policy/monetary theories are closely linked, and this seems the more prevalent use of the term.

  Sorry about the lack of historical sourcing – I’m not a historian, so while I’ve tried to give links to relevant historical episodes (Free Silver etc.), I’ve not given detailed references in this more summary article. Please feel free to add; I’ll see what I can do.

  So while the article clearly needs work, I hope it serves some useful function; in particular, I’d hope someone reading the main Inflation article would have some way to learn about historical advocacy of inflation; there’s the current Inflation#Positive section, which overlaps with the Inflationism#Contemporary advocacy section, and could probably be merged (either in the main article, or, perhaps better, given length of main article, that section made briefer and moved to this article), while the more historical examples (Free Silver etc.) seem to warrant a dedicated article.

  —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There needs to be better sourcing. This is an encyclopedic topic, in my opinion, although I'm not entirely sold that this is the proper title: Historical advocacy of inflationary policy or some such may be better. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nbarth makes a convincing case that this is a notable non-mainstream economic policy topic that may deserve improvement, but not deletion.  Sandstein  10:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jemalle Cornelius[edit]

Jemalle Cornelius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article subject fails to satisfy either the general notability guidelines or those for an athlete. Subject was not an exceptional college athlete, did not receive college All-American or all-conference honors or any major award, and never played a down in an NFL game. Please delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Notability unasserted fully, but is not totally unnotable. Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a member of a team that has won a national championship (time and time again), with national media coverage including multiple individual mentions, and having been individually quoted by the Knight Commission On Intercollegiate Athletics http://www.knightcommission.org/index.php?Itemid=41&catid=10%3Aresources&id=212%3Asummit-opening-remarks-by-jemalle-cornelius&option=com_content&view=article, and having been written about in multiple local articles (notably, his becoming head coach at Fort Meade) he easily meets WP:GNG as a notable individual who has been quoted in the media and who has made his mark through sporting achievement.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep College football players who have received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media are eligible for inclusion under WP:GNG. The overwhelming majority of college football players do not meet that standard. But Cornelius clearly does. He was a key player (some articles referred to him as the team's MVP) and team captain of Florida's 2006 national championship team. Examples of non-trivial media coverage about Berry include: (1) Cornelius makes Meyer, UF proud, Daytona Beach News-Journal, 10/27/06, (2) Cornelius embraces leadership role for No. 2 UF, Associated Press story (printed in multiple newspapers), 10/10/06, (3) FM Gator Jemalle Cornelius Quoted By President Bush, The Polk County Democrat, 3/22/07, (4) Carrying himself like a captain, Gators receiver Cornelius is a leader to teammates and the children he mentors, St. Petersburg Times, 11/1/06, (5) Ex-UF Star a 'Role Model' at Alma Mater, The Ledger, 5/17/09, (6) Former Gator WR Cornelius at home in coaching], WTSP News, 6/6/09, (7) THE JOURNEY ENDS TONIGHT; CORNELIUS LOOKING FOR NATIONAL TITLE TO CAP HIS CAREER AS A LEADER FOR GATORS, The Ledger 1/8/07, (8) Jemalle Cornelius Named Miner Head Football Coach, The Fort Meade Leader, 2/4/09, (9) Gators need backup to step up at receiver, Jemalle Cornelius says he is ready to take over for the injured Andre Caldwell], St. Petersburg Times, 9/22/05, (10) Young Doesn't Mean Unwise When It Comes To Fort Meade Coach Jemalle Cornelius, Coaches Aid, 11/14/09, (11) Cornelius Encourages Speed And Strength At Just Say No Rally, The Polk County Democrat, 4/11/09, (12) Jemalle Cornelius' Jersey Retired, The Fort Meade Leader, 10/19/07, (13) Fort Meade Welcomes Florida Gator Jemalle Cornelius Home, The Fort Meade Leader, 2/20/07, (14) Cornelius an important cog in UF's chemistry on, off the field, University Wire, 10/27/06, (15) Cornelius is coach's guy Senior wide receiver is valuable to Gators in many ways, Meyer says, The Florida Times-Union, 10/12/06, (16) Cornelius grades out a champ in Meyer's eyes, The Gainesville Sun, 10/12/06, (17) Cornelius coming up big for UF, News-Herald and Knight-Ridder/Tribune, 10/11/06, (18) CORNELIUS ALL-AROUND MVP; GATORS' RECEIVER WINS COACHES' PRAISE FOR THE MANY ROLES HE FILLS ON THE FIELD; ROAMING GATOR, The Ledger, 9/2/06, (19) Cornelius will be all over field, The Gainesville Sun, 8/29/06, (20) Cornelius, Leak Click Through the Air, Palm Beach Post, 4/16/06, (21) Cornelius A Highlight Reel, Palm Beach Post, 8/22/04, (22) Miner Star Cornelius Shines, The Ledger, 11/19/04, (23) Jemalle Cornelius Named Class A Player of the Year, The Polk County Democrat, 12/17/01, (24) MULTI-TALENTED CORNELIUS HAS FORT MEADE ON VERGE OF STATEASS A TITLE, The Ledger, 12/13/00, (25) Major Miner Cornelius Runs Wild for Ft. Meade, The Ledger, 12/1/01. Cbl62 (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep surpasses requirements of WP:GNG from widespread media coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per cbl62's exhaustive source list. matt91486 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Farrior[edit]

Matt Farrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article subject fails to satisfy either the general notability guidelines or those for an athlete. Subject was not an exceptional college athlete, did not receive college All-American or all-conference honors or any major award, and never played a down in an NFL game. Please delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The coverage I can find does not rise to the level of significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media IMO. What I've found mostly relates to his being cut by an NFL team or to his being the kid brother of All-Pro James Farrior (e.g., here and here). If other can demonstrate that he has received more significant coverage, I'd reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with James Farrior any information not already there. Farrior never played in an NFL game and does not seem to have otherwise notable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question the article claims he was with the Super Bowl XL champions... here people are saying he did not play--which is it? The records online do not show any statistics, but that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't play... This is an issue that should be cleared up before the AfD is closed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He never played in a game, see [13]. It appears that Farrior was on the active roster at one point during the 2005 season, but was mainly a practice squad player for the Steelers in 2005 and 2006. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Q Help me out, is that the columns "G" or "GS" in the table? for "Games Played" ? In other words, it's possible to play in a game but not do anything to record statistics--is that possibly the case here, or is it verified that he didn't play?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "G" stands for "Games played" and "GS" stands for "Games started" on NFL.com, and had he played in a game for the Steelers there would not be a zero in that column. It is verified that he did not play. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would have considered keeping with a major re-write, but mixed with the issues above of not playing, it looks a little too much like self-promotion or advertising to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He never played a game in an NFL game and all the coverage of his college playing days^[14] seems to be incidental mentions in coverage about specific games or in the context of being James Farrior's brother. OCNative (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Hand[edit]

Randy Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article subject fails to satisfy either the general notability guidelines or those for an athlete. Subject was not an exceptional college athlete, did not receive college All-American or all-conference honors or any major award, and never played a down in an NFL game. Please delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject does not appear to meet inclusion guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Gnome de plume (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Notability unasserted fully, but not totally unnotable. Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete College football players who have received significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media are eligible for inclusion under WP:GNG. The overwhelming majority of college football players do not meet that standard. The coverage I can find about Hand does not rise to the level of significant non-trivial coverage specifically about Hand; almost all of it consists of passing references in game coverage. If others demonstrate that he has received more significant coverage, I'd reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete collegiate offensive linemen rarely get coverage to warrant an article. They do get a lot of bruises... but bruises do not equate to notability. I'd change my position if sources appear... or if he successfully turns pro... or something...--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IntoUniversity[edit]

IntoUniversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Contested WP:PROD. organisation does not meet criteria for organisations at WP:ORG — Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Selection by royals is no real evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I had found sources at: [15], [16],[17], but I do not consider this to be sufficiently extensive coverage. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still hunting so please bare with me, this article should be better in about an hour or so :) Thanks! Pebkac (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only sources I can find that are reliable offer only trivial coverage. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete The charity has won several highly prestigious awards for the work it does. What else should I look for? Pebkac (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive reports in the press about them, for example, preferably on a national level. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Guardian Newspaper not a good exaple of national coverage? Pebkac (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... assuming it is more than a passing mention. A couple of sentences in a broader article isn't enough. Nor is reproduction of a press release. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian and The Times both featured entire articles about them; would that suffice? Pebkac (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so, yes... Keep Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The article seems sufficiently notable, it just needs a review to ensure it conforms to WP:NPOV Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Full length articles from two different national newspapers (both considered to be amongst the strongest of reliable news sources), plus coverage by the BBC; two significant awards and one (apparently) minor award. This is plenty of coverage to establish notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Thank you for your help everyone - does this mean that I can remove the deletion notice? Pebkac (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly not. The AfD tag will be removed by the admin who closes this discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I shall speak to Kudpung Pebkac (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't close this, because I started it. It must be closed by a non involved admin. Give it time, someone will be here soon, it needs to run for a full seven days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK that's fab. In the mean time, is there anything that anybody thinks could be improved from a neutrality point of view? Pebkac (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus in this discussion was that the sourcing lacked sufficient depth treating the subject topically for article. There was a strong subcurrent that notable information might be included somewhere, but no merge targets gained traction. I will be happy to userify if that will assist in obtaining information contained here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential candidate girls, 2008[edit]

United States presidential candidate girls, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

1. This is a WP:LINKFARM. 2. None of these so-called "presidential candidate girls" are remotely notable, except for Obama Girl (even that is a redirect to the actress who played her). The concept of "presidential candidate girls" is a neologism. OCNative (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Plus these redirects: Giuliani Girl, Hillary Girl, Huckabee Girl, Kucinich Girl, McCain Girl, Romney Girls, The Romney Girls, and Ron Paul Girl. OCNative (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LK (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Completely unnotable. Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename. List of notable Youtube video girls appearing during the 2008 presidential elections. Dream Focus 13:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these get ample coverage in the news media. For example Giuliani Girl [18] A notable phenomenon. Dream Focus 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so, my inclination would be to rewrite into an article about the phenomenon, not just a list. Morgan Wick (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to United States presidential election, 2008 Lionel (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: to United States presidential election, 2008. A fairly ephemeral gimmick, apparently lacking anything non-routine, any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or any analysis of its wider implications. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's an observable trend. But Wikipedia doesn't report on trends observed by editors, because that's original research. Needs something to WP:verify notability of this 2008 phenomenon. Looks to be impossible because only one (maybe two) of these girls ever attracted any attention from reliable third-party sources. Trivial coverage of the group at best. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's easy to find sources for this such as Where's Hillary Guy?, Obama Girl, Giuliani Girl Let The Feathers Fly or Obama Girl Meets Her Match. Worst case is that we merge this into some higher level article such as United States presidential election, 2008#Internet campaigns. Per our editing policy, deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And its easy to see that these sources treat these girls in isolation, from which any attempt to derive a wider topic would be pure WP:Synthesis -- which "per our policy" against original research (and also "per our policy" of not basing articles purely on routine news coverage) is impermissible. Some might call pulling a single policy out of context as "wikilawyering". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, all those sources treat the girls severally rather than in isolation. It's easy to turn up more such as Encyclopedia of Politics, the Media, and Popular Culture which states "The success of the viral clip led to answer songs such as "Hot for Hill"..." There's a clearly a topic here which has been recognised by a print encyclopedia and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ummm, no, nowhere like it, not even close. Your first source gives the 'several' girls mere vapid, vacuous mention as "The FCC has yet to regulate viral video or, consequently, viral vixen — those sirens of the information superhighway who so far include Obama Girl, Giuliani Girl and the Romney Girls. According to a poll on BarelyPolitical.com, Ron Paul Girl might be next." (If this is 'treating' the subject, then a bandaid is 'treating' an amputated limb.) WP:INDEPTH? NOT! The other two sources only deal (superficially, but in at least slightly more depth than your first empty-headed source) with Obama Girl vs Giuliani Girl (facing off on some obscure website) and the fact that Romney, unlike Obama, doesn't have a single girl, he has triplets. What is very, very, very "ordinary" is the coverage -- strictly WP:ROUTINE, as is CW's repeated referral at AfDs solely to two isolated paragraphs of WP:Editing policy, WP:PRESERVE & WP:IMPERFECT -- as though these two paragraphs are the entirety of that policy (explicitly by piping them as such), let alone the entirety of Wikipedia policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That all these girls emerged in the wake of Obama Girl is notable content, whether we place it in a subsection of I Got a Crush... on Obama, here, or elsewhere. Current title may not be easiest ways for searchers to find content.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The argument that there are no sources discussing the concept of "presidential candidate girls" as such, and that the article is therefore OR by synthesis, is persuasive.  Sandstein  09:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the question has to be, in a political climate where every tactic that has a potential to garner publicity is tried, and every momentarily successful tactic is copied, is every idea that enjoys its 15 seconds in the political sun worthy of being immortalised in an encyclopaedia? What's next? United States presidential candidate novelty ties, 2012? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was notable enough for every single novelty tie to get media coverage, then yes, that'd be fine. WP:I don't like it is not a reason to try to delete something. Also, this wasn't a political tactic, it was just various girls doing things on their own. Dream Focus 10:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) On your first point I, along with WP:EVENT, will have to agree to disagree with you. (ii) On your second point I WILL THANK YOU NOT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! I did not say "I don't like it", I did not give any argument that could reasonably be interpreted as "I don't like it". And for your information WP:NOTNEWS IS a reason for not including "something" (and specifically this topic) in Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 02:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mh the verb[edit]

Mh the verb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Secondary sources consist of an article in a student newspaper. VQuakr (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't locate verifiable and reliable sources, appears to be non-notable, per nom. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Per notability of WP:BLP and references of WP:MUSICBIO. Wikipedian2 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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