< 18 February	20 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wynanne Downer[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. Aaaccc (talk), 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Sources are not adequate to establish notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. PK T(alk) 15:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - An article noting her death by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is certainly significant being national in nature, but aside from that, there's no coverage outside her region where the Western Star has several article about her. Close, but not enough for me to say keep. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I think we should treat a significant major party nominee for a national position as notable; there will almost always be sources for them & the campaign, but they may not be findable online. I know not everyone agrees, but I hope this will become an established guideline. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - City council member, unsuccessful candidate for higher office; nothing in the article or in a search suggests that she meets WP's notability guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, specifically, the section on the 2004 federal election in Canada, per WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 19:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Not quite enough sources to pass WP:GNG, and fails WP:POLITICIAN. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete it. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:47, 26 February 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Printing and the environment[edit]

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

Content fork and potential POV, unneeded considering Environmental issues with paper Yaksar (let's chat) 23:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable topic for which sufficient information is available. I see no potential for a POV on this article. The Environmental issues with paper] is a more likely candidate for a POV if "issue" is considered in a negative context. It is not a content fork since there is space for both articles. If anything the Environmental issues with paper article should be merged into this one (with a redir) rather than having it deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this article is entirely about the environmental issues of paper, much of which has nothing to do with printing. And hell, it's got a list of facts, all of which just seem to be something you'd basically find on a flier encourages you to recycle and cut down on paper use.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact holy crap, I just re-read the entire article and there's basically nothing in it at all about printing and the environment. It's all about, well, environmental issues with paper.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alan's many "xxxx and the environment" articles have created a lot of unnecessary confusion and duplication, and I'm pleased that some have already been deleted. Johnfos (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on printing (make it its own section). There's some good info here, but not enough to constitute a separate article. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that last statement, I looked at the other arguments. Delete! --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This overlaps with other articles. There is no sourced content to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Content overlap & duplication galore.--JayJasper (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Environmental issues with paper--at this point there is no other content.. Possibly retitle that article to indicate a broader focus. DGG ( talk ) 00:29, 26 February 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. No prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dentistry and the environment[edit]

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

POV, OR, and most of it is more related to industry in general than to dentistry Yaksar (let's chat) 23:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of these "xxxx and the environment" articles have created a lot of unnecessary confusion and duplication, and I'm pleased that some have already been deleted. Johnfos (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An interesting thesis, but not established as a viable topic. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to dentistry#environmental impact per wp:retain useful sources. The dentistry article would need more about quick silver. ^walk victor falk^talk 07:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we already have Amalgam (dentistry), and I do not see where the article under discussion calls out mercury among the byproducts. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. & others. Heavy on OR and notabality not established.--JayJasper (talk) 18:28, 24 February 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 Merge to UHF (film) Mandsford 20:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spatula City[edit]

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

The material in question is not encyclopedic: the bit is not well known outside fan circles, and far too much detail is present that will bore, distract or confuse a non-fan, In other words, fancruft. WCityMike 05:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to the movie's article. Hilarious bit from a very funny movie, but not independently notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's support for separate notability in the article: its role on Rush Limbaugh, the fact that they loved the bit so much in Tulsa that they left the sign up for months after the film crew left town, and The New York Times choice of this song to invoke Weird Al's style in a 2004 article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:38, 15 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the film's main article. It's not notable outside the film as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 07:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main film article. Not independent enough separate from the film.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:03, 28 February 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. Will userfy to be worked on further if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computers and the environment[edit]

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

A needless content fork of Electronics and the environment, also has almost no information or cited links Yaksar (let's chat) 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable topic that needs expanding rather than deleting. It is not a content fork of Electronics and the environment but rather a subset of it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alan's many "xxxx and the environment" articles have created a lot of unnecessary confusion and duplication, and I'm pleased that some have already been deleted. Johnfos (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sparse content in the article can be merged into Electronics and the environment --papageno (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can see issues concerning environmental-friendly usage of computers in data centers, etc., but until there is significant content in Electronics and the environment I don't see why this shouldn't be placed there. Also, how is the latter article going to differ from Electronic waste? Nageh (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., unless it can be promptly expanded with reliably sourced content. If such expansion is forthcoming, than it should be moved to a sandbox until it is complete enough to be placed in namespace.--JayJasper (talk) 18:36, 24 February 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Cabrera[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason was given for contesting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Youth club was notable, but never got signed to play for them as a professional. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No contest. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and does not meet WP:NSPORTS or the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per evidence from Stu and Sir Sputnik this player now meets WP:NSPORTS, so my !vote has changed to keep. Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new evidence that this player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem with this case is the assumption that the highest league in Cyprus is not fully professional - which under WP:NFOOTBALL is the somewhat arbitrary qualifying criterion for notability. From what I can tell, this comes from one throwaway line in an article on the website of a Cypriot club's sponsor. That line doesn't even say that the league is semi pro, just that the club they sponsor is professional. Cypriot teams have performed reasonably well in European competition in recent years and Cabrera's club has Jordi Cruyff as director of football and a highly international squad. None of this suggests to me anything but professionalism. Although it is unsourced, this article suggests that at least the top division is pro, and that the lower divisions are a mixture of pro and semi-pro.Stu.W UK (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To address Stu's comments, I'd like to draw everyone's attention here, where I've asked others opinions on some sources that deal with exactly that issue. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the evidence cited by Sputnik. I have also moved Cyprus from the list of non-pro to the list of pro leagues. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as nominator, I am now satisfied that the Cypriot First League is fully pro, and I am prepared to withdraw the nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:36, 19 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Even with the nominator's withdrawal, the "deletes" outnumber the "keeps" so I think more discussion is needed. The "delete" !voters should also be encouraged to revisit this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 19 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

String exploits[edit]

[header inserted with revised article name 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)] Unscintillating (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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

I cannot find any citations that establish notability. Plenty of cites for format string attacks, but not for the exploit described here. Article has had unreferenced tag since December 2009, Notability tag and Technical tags since March 2008. Last edit (other than minor typo fixes and such) was in 2007, and there have never been any discussions on the talk page. Guy Macon 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the improvements made since I wrote the above, I think the article is now worth keeping. Does anyone think it should be deleted? If not, do I need to do something special to withdraw the afD or just let it run its course? Guy Macon 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the good things about something being in the AfD process is that people look at it who might not otherwise. One or more may still wander along and make great improvements. Always better to let them run unless they are time wasters... and I think this article still needs much love, so not a waster. Thanks for tagging it.Shajure (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I moved the article to String exploit. Redirect is in place from the plural.Shajure (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. It's also extremely unclear and downright inaccurate; for example, many languages have comment characters but most of those languages only obey them when parsing program files for execution, not user input.

Keep. As rewritten described below it's fine. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google search on "Asciiz exploit" produces hits. "Comment character exploit" also shows some hits such as this one. So this may not be a question of "is this notable", since the idea of "exploits using strings" seems to be both notable and interesting, but "is this salvageable". Have all of the major editors been notified? Unscintillating (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I find no Google search results for ["Comment character exploit"] (with quotes). The link you give is about SQL injection, on which we do have an article. The present article is so unclear that I'm not sure what the topic is, but it may be an attempt to create an article about "Unchecked user input", as it is called in our article on Vulnerability (computing), or "Improper input validation", as it is called in the Common Weakness Enumeration repository (entry CWE-20). This is definitely a notable topic, but content-wise the present article String exploits is unsalvageable. --Lambiam 09:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded; it might in principle be a notable topic but the content would have to be redone from scratch. I think it's probably best to redirect it, until anybody ever actually manages to write encyclopaedic content on this subject. bobrayner (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By itself it is not notable, and the article only discusses concatenation without highlighting how this, by itself, is an exploit. I believe that other articles such as Vulnerability (computing) already cover this area. --HighKing (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I just looked at Vulnerability (computing) and asked myself if this article gives the reader anything not found there. Nothing as far as I can tell. Guy Macon 13:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above was true of the article at that time, but is not true now that the article has been rewritten. Guy Macon 02:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me to be a disambiguation page, with a lot of needless yack and opinion. Added a source, dropped the yack, dropped the opinion. Format isn't right. Shajure (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like beauty, this must have been in the eye of the beholder. All the exploits given now as examples were originally listed in a final section See also (other string problems), while the original examples were eliminated, so to me it seems that whatever the original author meant is virtually disjoint from what is described here now. --Lambiam 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that what we have now is very much not what the author intended. If interested, he or she will return and add encyclopedic content.Shajure (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per rewrite. Unscintillating (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after rewrite. I am not convinced, though, that "string exploit" is a commonly used term. I see it only in the combination "format string exploit", which of course is not a "format {string exploit}", but should be parsed (and properly written) as "format-string exploit". --Lambiam 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of references using the term "exploit string" and removed the notability template. Unscintillating (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources discussing beer bottles will not help to establish that Bottle beer is a good article title. If the article title here was Exploit string, then it might make sense to cite sources using that term. However, the title is "String exploit", and the added references, none of which uses that term, do not undercut my point that this is not a commonly used term. --Lambiam 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that "String exploit" isn't a commonly used term. The actual exploit described is well known, but the usual term used to describe it is something along the lines of "unvalidated user input exploit" or "unchecked form input exploit" (not sure what exact wording is most common, but it isn't "string exploit). A better name would be a big improvement. Guy Macon 01:35, 24 February 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 seems to have already been deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE 2.21.11[edit]

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

Very few references and I don't think that a promotion for WWE warrants an individual article TehMissingLink ^Talk 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, distinctly unencyclopaedic and vague. I am slightly puzzled as to how an article so woolly has such a precise title. I can't see many people searching for this. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that a smimilar article WWE 2-21-11 has already been deleted and I don't think that this one is any better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.180.54 (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an article about an advert, it would have to be a particularly significant advert to be notablr, it is not. MLA (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete An article about a 30-second promo for a weekly series is always unnotable. Should've never been created in the first place. Nate • (chatter) 09:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no way a run of the mill WWE promo requires a WP article. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly non-notable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:45, 20 February 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) 00:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Jackson[edit]

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

I've declined two speedies on this article (A7 and G11) because they didn't seem to apply. However, I'm having major issues finding any mention of this guy in reliable sources, and am suspecting a hoax. He has a bit of a common name (Jesse Jackson, and Jess Stonestreet Jackson, Jr.) so that clouds things a bit. However, none of the references direct to pages mentioning him, and I'm finding very little on Google. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found that discuss this particular person in depth. I found lots of articles about California wine producer Jess Jackson. Maybe we should have an article about him instead. Cullen328 (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I herby request that the page not be deleted. I am responsible for starting this page and have to apologize for the lack of citations and references. It was due to the lack of my expertise within using wikipedia. I have educated myself on the usage of wikipedia and have began adding citations and references within the page. I assure you you that I will continue to do so until the page see's fit to comply with wikipedia's standards. Thank you --Je55 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC) — Je55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This page should definitely not be deleted as jess jackson is a genuine record producer within the music industry and is currently active. --Doctorjazzer (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC) — Doctorjazzer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It appears almost certain that both Je55 and Doctorjazzer are single purpose accounts set up for the main purpose of editing Jess Jackson and closely related articles. Accordingly, their opinions expressed here should carry less weight. Cullen328 (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged them as such. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 03:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a not noteable producer and also an unsourced page of this so called producer. STATic message me! 17:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is he not "Notable" when he is a multi platinum selling producer and just yesterday Tyga (his artist he works with mostly) posted a song produced by him to over two miillion fans on his Facebook page. see Tyga on facebook. I would also like to state that the whole reason this page even being discussed for deletion is due to STATic becoming disgruntled at two changes I made to his changes on Tyga_discography. He then undid my changes and went on to research my other pages, he came after the Jess_Jackson page I have been building up. I feel that if you look into his behavior you will see that its vindictive in nature. Needless to say, I am still looking at more sources of notoriety and will continue to add them as discovered. I appreciate all of your input on the matter. --Je55 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC) — Je55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Response Notability on Wikipedia is defined as in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources of Jess Jackson himself. A large number of Facebook fans for an artist he produces doesn't count. If you provide evidence of that level of coverage in reliable sources, then we will agree that he is notable. The motivations of other editors do not matter - what matters are what the reliable sources say. That's our policy. Cullen328 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response I must point out that I'm a bit concerned that it is so difficult to find reliable sources covering a producer of this supposed level of fame (producer of Tyga, created a song that birthed UK Garage, performing alongside big-name artists, music featured on MTV and Bravo shows, and producing a platinum album). A Google search for "Jess Jackson producer" (to avoid all of the hits regarding the other Jess Jackson) turns up the Wikipedia article, his official page, a Twitter account, a Facebook fan page, two Wikipedia mirrors, a Spokeo page, a site called TrueKnowledge, a Yahoo! Answers-type site, and a SoundClick page. All of these are primary sources or unreliable sources. A Google News search with the same search query turns up nothing whatsoever. All of this just screams hoax to me. Surely a producer/artist of this caliber would have at least a magazine article or two somewhere. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 06:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was concerned about hoax-ness too; it is at least the case that Tyga's official facebook page mentions a Jess Jackson (including the aforementioned posting of a song produced by Jess Jackson [1]). But if it is true, does that make him notable? peachlette (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. verifiability is also an issue. The blizzard of references sprinkled into the article are rather dubious. Many are links from unreliable sources including one from Wikipedia which I removed. Other references are to sites where he isn't mentioned and thus do not verify anything. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 23 February 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 merge/redirect. Not sure what exactly to merge as so much of the article lacks references. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hīt during the Iraq War[edit]

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

This article is an extreme POVFORK. It is not only unverified (the article has no sources), it is almost certainly unverifiable, since it relies on the memory of those involved in the conflict. It's filled with POV language, and is highly biased towards the side of the US military. If there is any verified information here, it can be added to Hīt. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while I agree with the nom that this article has problems, the reason I say keep is I’m concerned the main article of Hīt will end up looking like this one, where too much of the article is based on the war. Since the subject is notable, it would be better if the article eventually looked more like this one. This article was split out of the main article because editors kept adding info about the war. Rather than delete, I recommend sending to the Incubator. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article incubator will be fine; note, however, that Hīt will not end up looking like this, because any unsourced information added to that article will be promptly removed (on my watchlist now, too). Furthermore, even sourced info can be included only to a limited extent, because it improperly makes several years in a city with at least 3000 years of history too important. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you will watch the Hit article. I'm still concerned that it will be subject to a western/recent bias as mentioned by Bahamut0013. IMHO, there is a high probability that good intentioned authors will add well sourced info mostly based on events from the Iraq War, which is what happened with Nawa-I-Barakzayi District from the Afghan War. I do realize that coverage on the area during the war probably represents the majority of info available on the subject. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hīt: While I respect FieldMarine's valid point on WP:UNDUE, I don't think this article as a stand-alone is up to snuff. We should merge over a bit about the war without unbalancing it in favor of a westernist and recentist bias. As the Hīt article grows, we can restore some of that removed war content in a more well-written and referenced manner. I'm not familiar with incubation, but unless somebody is going to actually take this project on, we might as well not bother. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some to Hīt. Incubate or ditch the rest. It's almost completely unreferenced, and do we really need that much detail (down to the battalion level)? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect - the vast majority of this content is not well cited, what is cited should be merged into the article about the town Hit. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 23 February 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 (A7) by RHaworth (non-admin closure) --Pgallert (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fail Emotions[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. JustEase (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comments otherwise but here's another article related to the subject which should be deleted if this one goes: Transfornation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakhalesh (talk • contribs) 18:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes Bad would also need to be deleted if the main article goes. That being said, the article probably deserves deletion but we should remember that it's a Russian band and that there may be reliable coverage in Russian publications. As far as I can tell, coverage in English is minimal. Pichpich (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definately non-notable band, only have 2500 friends on myspace. fails on every point of WP:BAND. Dance Macabre (Single) would also have to go. Postrock1 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not having too many friends on MySpace doesn't seem like a very valid reason for the page to be deleted, a valid reason would be inacurate information or if the page was completely fictional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.227.1 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The article meets the criteria for speedy deletion. It's not about the reasons for the article being deleted, it's about the reasons for the article being kept. Not everything needs a Wikipedia article. Subject must be shown to meet notability guidelines and there is no indication that this band can meet those. Looking at myspace and not seeing any indcation that the band has acheived any level of notority is just an indicator that nothing is being met here. RadioFan (talk) 03:06, 20 February 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 WP:SNOW keep Ironholds (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Williams[edit]

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

This person clearly violates the "one event" stricture of the BLP critoeria. Furthermore, the subject is not notable at all anyhow. Not any bloke that gets covered on "Dateline NBC" deserves to have an encyclopaedia article written on his fetishes. Underween (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep/speedy close, bad faith nom from a dubious account. Obviously notable, many, many sources, a major news story in Canada and elsewhere, bordering on a scandal for the Canadian military. Even the crimes themselves involve more than a single event. Hairhorn (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a major news story in Canada, and the brutal murder of two woman by a trusted military leader is a large scandal for the Canadian military. It was headline news for weeks after he was arrested, and again during the trial. I'll see if there is any way I can improve the article, but I think generally it's well written. Nihola (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep In no way can this be seen as "not notable". To add to above statements, coverage is continual anytime any new developments arise. Most recently, an article in the latest Macleans magazine, and one about 5/6 weeks back as well. Ravendrop 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very significant coverage of the so-called 'single event' (which it is not of course, because of the serial nature of the crimes). Furthermore, Russell Williams wasn't exactly a 'nobody', notability also comes from his position as former commander of CFB Trenton, the largest air base in Canada. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 22:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per previous commenters. This article was in place long before the episode of Dateline NBC and that is by no means the basis for his notability. -- Editor at Large • talk 22:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per everyone. This guy would have passed notability requirements had his name never been spoken south of the US border. --NellieBly (talk) 22:34, 19 February 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. By raw numbers this would be a "no consensus" decision, however the delete voters have presented a valid argument regarding the actual role of mayors in this context which has not been refuted by logical, policy based argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kelleher (Councillor)[edit]

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

Non notable local councillor in Ireland. Fails WP:Politician. Article appears to be created to promote his candidacy in forthcoming Irish general election. Snappy (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the former mayor of Fingal which has about 240,000 people, he meets WP:POLITICIAN. His current candidacy for another political office is not relevant. Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to bear in mind that the Mayor of an Irish local government council is an honorary position that a councillor can hold for one year. It is not directly elected and confers no powers on the holder. The holder has no more powers or privilege than any other councillor. It is not equivalent to an American Mayor in any way. Snappy (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some mayors in the United States are elected the same way - by their fellow council members rather than all the voters. I live in a city that had that method for many years, before changing to direct election a few years ago. I still think he qualifies as notable, given the population of Fingal, and his past office. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the editor who 'approved' the article (coming from articles for creation), I somewhat verified notability, and it appeared he met WP:Politician as far as mayor and 'regional importance' go. That the term mayor varies between jurisdiction is another matter, and if this is the main issue here, then it has to be clarified in the guideline : Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 08:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as he was not elected specifically as a mayor. Ordinary councillors take it in turns.Red Hurley (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Red Hurley. Most British mayors are appointed in this way, though there are exceptions such as the Mayor of London. The problem is that there are other more important positions, such as Leader of the Council in England, which would need to be recognised as notable if we accept mayors automatically. Mr Kelleher can be considered notable if he makes it to TD. If there is widespread disagreement on this I suggest referring for a wider discussion on the policy on notability of local politicians. AJHingston (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel the article is relevant as it meets point 1 of WP:Politician. I also feel it is his nomination for election that makes it notable. I can point to several other articles with similar subjects that are currently on wikipedia such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Barry_(Irish_Socialist_Party), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Power and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Daly and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mitchell_O'Connor

Also a Mayor in Fingal is elected by councillors. The councillors do not simply "take turns." see: http://www.fingal-independent.ie/premium/news/byrne-elected-mayor-of-fingal-1785752.html

it should alsobe noted that the position of Mayor or (Cathaoirleach as it is called on some councils), while not as powerful as most American mayors is more than a honourary position. From Citizensinformation.ie:

Role and responsibilities of the Cathaoirleach

The Cathaoirleach takes the chair (or presides) at meetings of the local authority. On an occasion where this is an equal division of votes on an issue, they may exercise a second or casting vote (except however, in the case of when a new Cathaoirleach is being elected). The Cathaoirleach is responsible for the conduct of business and maintenance of order at meetings and can call for (or requisition) a special meeting of the council and obtain information from the County Manager on relevant matters. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/local_and_regional_government/cathaoirleach_of_the_council.html Gallac8 (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is very similar to the role of the mayor on England, who is also normally elected by fellow concillors, but I would not say that it really confers notability in any real and lasting sense. Aside from chairing meetings it is a largely ceremonial role and the holder is expected to be politically neutral for their time in office. It can be difficult to get anyone with the time or inclination to do it even in cases where the office includes robes and chain of office, being driven around and being treated as important on formal occasions. In general, just being a candidate for the national legislature does not meet the notability guidelines. If we say that having been mayor is automatically notable, it is unreasonable to deny a rival politician who has spent, say, several years as leader of the council, which is politically the most important position on a council and has executive powers. Then others will argue that their own position/experience is at least as notable, and that isn't difficult by comparison with the post of mayor. There are very good reasons why Wikipedia tries to have firm guidelines about people who are standing for election, and there will always be some who slip through - if so that is what this process is about. AJHingston (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Also, Gallac8 should refrain from using the "What about X?" argument per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. This discussion relates to the notability of Tom Kelleher, not anyone else. Snappy (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm quite new to this whole thing. Gallac8 (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)gallac8[reply]

Delete. per nom and red hurley. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a mayor is not in itself sufficient evidence of notability, nor is being a candidate in an election. No indication that his other activities are particularly noteworthy. Can obviously be recreated if he is elected on Friday. Warofdreams talk 12:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an elected mayor of Fingal which is one of the counties of Ireland. He definitely meets WP:POLITICIAN. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the keep votes above are quoting this guideline Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city but there is no way that Fingal meets any of those criteria. It's a half rural/half suburban council with the largest population centre having only 90k. That's not a major metropolitan centre and neither is it a city of regional importance since it's on the fringes of Dublin City (whose mayor would qualify.) There's nothing else of substance in the article not connected with his election bid. In the unlikely event he wins a seat on Friday the article can be recreated. Valenciano (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fingal not being of regional importance is a subjective opinion and one that would not be shared by most of those in the region. Also this is hardly the place for your comments on whether the subject will be elected or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallac8 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair chance that it wouldn't be shared by most of those in the county, many people often believe that their little burgh is the centre of the universe but that's not how it works. Why do you claim Fingal is of regional importance? Is it the centre of a larger region? Why would it be a regional centre and not Dublin? Just saying "it's important, so there" is unlikely to sway anyone.

For me, Fingal is definitely not a major metropolitan city, it consists of areas which are by and large commuter areas for Dublin city, which is the main urban centre. According to the article: Blanchardstown is the largest urban area. Well here's what the Blanchardstown article says: "Blanchardstown is the largest village within the historical Barony of Castleknock. It is also extends into an outer suburb of Dublin within the administrative county of Fingal." Very hard to see from that the importance of a council, the largest urban area in which is described as a mix of a large village and a suburb of a major city nearby. The articles on Castleknock and the other villages therein make clear that their population growth is entirely due to them being satellite areas of Dublin City.

My comments on whether the subject is elected or not are precisely the point. If he's elected he'll be notable as he will then meet the politician guidelines, for now Mayor of suburban council X definitely doesn't. Valenciano (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I feel that is has been reasonably argued that the subject is not the "Mayor" as intended in the guideline. Thus, he falls under the category of Councilor in my opinion. Per WP:POLITICIAN "as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city", the town is not a major metropolitan city. Also, concerning Gallac8's comments right above me, I disagree. This is the perfect place for Valenciano's opinion on whether or not the subject will be elected to higher office. This is a discussion. It would only be WP:CRYSTAL if it said "Keep - subject will be elected". However, suggesting that the article can be recreated if the subject is elected (paraphrased) is a valid opinion. As far as regional importance being subjective opinion, that is the purpose of discussion and coming to consensus. If it were not subjective, there would be no need for discussion.--v/r - T P 13:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an Irish editor, I confirm that Fingal is an important county, so the elected mayor of it is notable as per WP:POLITICIAN. --Badvibes101 (talk) 14:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Snappy, mayor is not elected. Is Snappy wrong?--v/r - T P 14:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, he is wrong. Councillors don't just take turns; mayor is elected by the councillors. --Badvibes101 (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your being Irish counts for zilch as I'm also Irish, as is the nominator and several others commenting here so your confirmation of your own opinion means nothing. The Politician guideline says nothing about "important counties" it says "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Fingal is not even a city nevermind a major metropolitan city. Neither is it a regional centre, being in County Dublin where the regional centre is, y'know, Dublin. Valenciano (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may come as a big surprise for you Valenciano but County Dublin actually doesn't exist anymore. We have Dublin City, South Dublin, Fingal, Dun-Laoghaire-Rathdown. Can't see why mayor of Dublin City is notable and mayor of South Dublin isn't. After all, he is head of the whole county, so has to be notable. --Badvibes101 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read what I wrote properly. I wrote the Mayor "is not directly elected", so I am correct. Kelleher was elected to the council, not as Mayor. All an Irish Mayor does is wear a fancy chain for a year, chair a few council meetings and cut a few ribbons. Snappy (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Snappy, you said the mayor "is not directly elected", indeed. TParis misquoted you - and I didn't check the quote. Sorry. --Badvibes101 (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except I didn't quote Snappy, I paraphrased his comment. Do you see any quote marks? Don't blame me that you didn't read the entire discussion. You would've known Snappy's comment before I referred to it.--v/r - T P 13:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't misquote him but you changed the meaning of what he said. You asked me a direct question and I gave you a direct answer. I had no way of knowing what Snappy had possibly said in other discussions, and I surely wouldn't be able to check all the contributions of such a prolific editor. --Badvibes101 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit the meaning sounds different now but it wasn't my intention to be misleading. It wasn't in another discussion though, somewhere near the top of this discussion Snappy made a comment and that is what I was referring to.--v/r - T P 01:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Badvibes: County Dublin doesn't exist in an administrative sense but it does in many other senses and Blanchardstown or "Fingal" are certainly not the centres of it. If you want to nitpick about it, the 1991 local government act which you refer to establishes regional authorities. The one for Fingal is the Dublin Region. Now which city do you suppose is the centre of that region which meets the criteria in WP:POLITICIAN?

You ask why the mayor of Dublin City is notable but the mayor of Fingal isn't? Well first off Dublin, besides having about 1.1 million people, is a national capital. Fingal is neither a national capital nor a major urban centre: it contains a few suburbs of Dublin city, none of which has over 90k. There's also the little matter of the Politician guideline. That sets out who is and who isn't notable and that guideline doesn't say that any old Mayor of any old County is notable. Here's what it says: "Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." See? Nothing about counties, so arguing on the basis of what you think should be notable, while ignoring the guideline which specifically sets out exactly who is notable even after it's been pointed out to you won't cut it. Valenciano (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pity there isn't anything about counties in WP:POLITICIAN, which makes the guidelines not only vague but sometimes absurd: is a Mayor of a big Irish county, e.g. Co. Mayo, not notable? Or less notable than a Mayor of a small city like Kilkenny (or is it still a town)? The Mayor of Fingal County is not a Mayor of Swords; he's in charge of the whole county, which is of regional importance. It is the question of how we apply the guidelines. --Badvibes101 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines don't even say that Mayors of large cities are automatically notable, they simply say that mayors of large cities who have been sufficiently written about in depth are notable. In depth generally means they've had some kind of bio in the national press. Politicians at Kelleher's level generally only get routine coverage in the local paper "Mayor X was at the opening of the local library" / "Mayor X complained about the closure of the local nursery" etc and those definitely aren't sufficient for notability. All that said, polls in Ireland are closing in less than an hours time so I don't see a problem with waiting until the result is announced, likely to be late tomorrow or Sunday. Valenciano (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fingal is a city of 222,000 population. That's large enough that the mayor can be considered notable--regardless of the election results for Seanad Éireann. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read *anything* that anyone has said above? Fingal is not a city, it's a collection of villages and Dublin commuter suburbs, therefore your keep rationale is invalid as it is based on a faulty understanding of what Fingal is. Valenciano (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re:valentino- guidelines don't mention anything about national versus regional press. are these your own private guidelines? can we have a look at them?Gallac8 (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)gallac8[reply]

No they're not private, they're there in WP:POLITICIAN backed up by past precedent in countless AFDs for politicians. Every local mayor will get a quote or two in the local press, every election candidate will get coverage in a local paper, yet every mayor and election candidate per previous afds is not notable. Kelleher is a clear example of this. Valenciano (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also a quick read of the sources in the article will show 2 bios of the subject in national press organs Gallac8 (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)gallac8[reply]

The sources are local media, the national ones only mentioned him as a candidate, they are not about him. Read the guidelines again - "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I don't think Kelleher meets these criteria. Snappy (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we allow TK then most councillors will be on wiki at some point as they take it in turns. Colm Purcell is the current "mayor" of County Kildare and while he has been prominent in local politics for decades he has never been elected to the Dáil, which is the sensible cut-off point. A local authority "mayor" is primus inter pares and no more. It is a fairly new title since the 1990s. He would be a one-year chairman / cathoirleach otherwise, which doesn't sound quite so impressive. That is the reality.Red Hurley (talk) 11:48, 27 February 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Syrian protests[edit]

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

Article about a day of rage that didn't happen. Not notable, content could easily be included in the redirect 2010-2011 Arab World protests. Wikipedia is not a news bulletin. Yazan (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —Yazan (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting too long to be included in the main article. 69.31.50.227 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTNEWS, this is not a notable event in any way. It shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Yazan (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire latest events are 'news' and the Syrian subsection in the main article is getting way too long and it should be separated. The noteworthiness of an article is not an evaluation for deletion. 69.31.50.227 (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may not have deserved its own article before, but yesterday a big protest occurred in Damascus: [2][3]. Together with other incidents that occurred before this, and the graffiti today:[4] ~~maybe it deserves its own article now.~~ --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A demonstration of 2000 people that was never mentioned in any RS, and was never related to the events, would never pass notability. Soryoon, Free-Syria, couldn't possibly be RS. Yazan (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source I brought is Alquds. There is also Al Arabiya [5] and LA Times and NYT blogs:[6][7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think it meets notability at the moment. When it does, and gets sufficient coverage I'd be more than happy to help with the article. But this is ridiculous as it stands now. A demonstration of 1500 people, and a video of anti-government Graffiti, is not noteworthy, I'm sorry Yazan (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this notable for you? St. Joseph Parish, Claremont? 69.31.50.227 (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth is it not related? 69.31.50.227 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also please take note that most of the Arabic sourced material is disputable because the sources would never qualify as WP:RS. All the RS there are about an event that was called for, but never happened. Yazan (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As i am the creator of this article. I also honestly dont see any apparent reason for deleting this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for keeping a non-event. Chesdovi (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to see here, move along people. When some protests happen in Syria in 2011 there'll be an article. To date there's been nothing much happening in Syria. Protests of 1-2 thousand people are remarkable only for their lack of size. MLA (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article now has a significant amount of content citing reliable sources in English like nytimes and WSJ. It is too big to simply include in the main article. (Keeping the deletion tag up is an embarrassment for Wikipedia. We really should wait a week or so for RfD with Current events articles like this one because they rapidly become notable enough according to the criteria for inclusion stated in WP:NOTNEWS.) {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 15:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. Rather, when it becomes notable, it would be included. Right now it is nothing but speculation, and minor events that are embarrassing to put in an Encyclopedia. Yazan (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are Syrian, so I see a clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Please recuse yourself from this discussion. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 15:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, as a Syrian, I can not discuss Wikipedia topics relating to my country? How absurd, truly. Yazan (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not state that you should not discuss anything related to your country; that would be absurd indeed, and the encyclopaedia would be worse off. Rather, you should not RfD articles that your COI prevents you from seeing objectively. I practice what I'm preaching here: I do not RfD articles or participate in deletion discussions when I have a bias. The discussion above smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 16:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you've judged that I have a bias, and I can't see objectively because of my nationality. There is no COI, my arguments are all within Wikipedia's guidelines. This article does not WP:NOTABILITY, very simple. When it does and if it does, I will gladly be writing in there. Right now it doesn't. Yazan (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, not only you are Syrian, but also an Alawite and that is a major conflict of interests. 69.31.50.183 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) First of all, there is nothing on my page that says I'm Alawite. It actually says I'm an athiest. Second of all, instead of focusing on what sect/religion/nationality I am, try to discuss the article. Is that too much to ask for on Wikipedia? Yazan (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we go off further on this tangent, "Conflict of interest" is usually confined to those cases where a person is directly connected to the subject under discussion, such as Miley Cyrus arguing over an article about Billy Ray Cyrus. To User:Heroeswithoutmetaphors, you can point out that you think that someone may have a bias, but what you're implying is that you can see things objectively, and that Yazan and other natives of Syria lack that ability. That may not be what you meant, but it's sounding like it. Please do not tell ask people to recuse themselves from a discussion. Mandsford 16:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep the article needs an update not a deletion. content is on the umbrella page.Lihaas (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of "Free-Syria" sources there, not reliable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8 out of 31 to be exact - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Jesus Christ, we really need to stop creating an article for every random protest. First, the "Day of Rage" didn't even materialize. It'll be different if 50,000 people took to the streets of Damascus, killing ten. Second, all these protests are completely unrelated and insignificant.

Let's take a look at all the so-called protests (like actual protests, not interviews with the president):

Jan 26 - some guy burns himself (clear relation to the Tunisian Revolution).

Jan 29 - a "demonstration" held in Ar-Raqqah. The source is in Arabic, I can't find any English source. Even if the demonstration is even remotely large, it was "in protest against the killing of two soldiers of Kurdish descent" (AKA nothing to do with the Jan 26 incident at all).

Feb 5 - "hundreds" gathered in Al-Hasakah, which likely is related to the Jan 26 incident.

Feb 17 - 1,500 protestors, triggered by fight in Damascus. No connection with Jan 26 incident nor Jan 29 incident.

As we can see, most of the incidents are all separate, with no more than 1,500 protestors at most and lead pretty much nowhere. The thing is this: Syria will always has minor "protests". Are we really going to report all of them? Also, how are we determining the start and end date of this protest. If Syria's regime doesn't fall and 5 guys get into fights with the police every month, this article can go forever. I guess with all the media attention shone on the Middle East these days, even 3 people waving Anti-Government signs = protest. Can we stop the overreaction? 140.180.14.79 (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Syrian section of the main article, for the time being. If protests develop into something significant, then we can recreate this article. For now, it is much more comprehensive for readers to keep Syria's present situation succintly summarized in a subheader on a general article dealing with the protests. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on the comments by 140.180.14.79 and Yazan, and that the majority of sources here and at the other main article are unreliable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Syria Another example of a WP:CRYSTAL violation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, nothing much happened here so far. —Nightstallion 08:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nightstallion, masteramp --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The redirect suggestions fail WP:SPLIT#Article_size which says > 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided. The present version of the main article [8] is 125k, and the Syrian section stands out as being one of the longest individual sections. What needs to be done is for a proper WP:LEAD to be written for this article (based on the NPOV+RS'd content) and then copied to the main article (with appropriate obvious non-controversial changes for within-article context), which would reduce that article's length, bringing it closer to a reasonable size. But people are unlikely to invest time writing a proper lead here while the article is under threat of deletion. Boud (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the Syria section in the original article is less than notable anyway, and should be cut. That the Syria section is too long there is not a good excuse to ignore WP:NOTE. Yazan (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article already demonstates notability and this is a natural break out article from 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, a very long article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage appears sufficient to warrant notability. Agree that it is a natural split from the other long article. However, poor sources should be removed now and not later.Cptnono (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect From the information in the article, these protests clearly appear to be relatively minor, few, and isolated. With this in addition to having very little coverage, I don't believe we should have an article on the protests. At the same time its almost obvious they are a part of the wider ongoing unrest in the region. Therefore, I think the appropriate thing to do is maintain the info in the 2010-2011 Middle East protests article. If the section is too big there, it is unnecessarily and should be cleaned up. Ways for us to do that could be discussed on that article's talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clear case of WP:BLUDGEON by nominator. Notability is established, despite instruction bulldozing such as "Arabic sourced material is disputable because the sources would never qualify as WP:RS" I have tolerated WP US-centrism for quite a while, but that's way over the line. Can you say, Google Translator ? Sure you can.

Obviously the article is badly written, but that is no reason for deletion. And there are 17 other voters here. Like myself, they may all be too busy, but 17? I think it more likely that some of the Keepers are not working on the article in case it gets deleted and their work is wasted, and some of the Deletors are not working on it for the same reason, or because they tend to not write anything other than delete votes. Anarchangel (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't say that Arabic sources are not RS, I said the ones used are not RS. Elaph, is an Arabic tabloid. Soryoon is a sectarian agenda-driven website. Free-Syria which is quoted all over the place doesn't mind publishing news like "Assad sends troops to help Ghaddafi" [9], take that to any real newspaper and see if they'd publish it. They are not RS, and I know that specifically because I can read Arabic.

There are more than 200 Japanese salarymen demonstrating in the park next me since last night, I'm sure there will coverage of them in media, shall we create an article about 2011 Japanese protests.

I stick to my point, it is not notable, once it is people will write about and it will be covered in several RS not dubious sites like the ones they're using now. People are not writing because there's nothing to add, or write, not because it's gonna be deleted. Yazan (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests#Syria. Alinor (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People taking part in any activity that may be viewed as in opposition to the Syrian Government are at real risk - and so are their families ^[1]. These demonstrators come with great courage which must surely identify their actions as notable. This page should stand by itself sheila mosley (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy-based argument for keeping. Yazan (talk) 16:27, 27 February 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. Early snow close. 7 00:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Tinnitus Association[edit]

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

Unclear notability, vaguely (but not blatantly) promotional, all the sources except for two are from the ATA's website itself. Of those two, this one from audiologyonline.com was written by "Cheryl McGinnis, MBA, Executive Director of the American Tinnitus Association." The Better Business Bureau one does nothing but confirm it exists and is a 501(c)(3) organization. Additionally the section titled "The Scientific Advisory Committee" is a close paraphrase of the first paragraph of its source (found here) c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 17:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hundreds of hits at Google News.[10] Hundreds more at Google Books[11] and at Google Scholar[12]. This is a mainstream organization, quoted and referenced frequently in articles and literature about tinnitus. The tone and content of the article needs work, but that's a subject for editing, not AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll take Arxiloxos' research in good faith and back his arguments for the keeping of this article. Berek (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non-profit organization established 40 years ago. Copious Google hits. Cited on US Government's Healthfinder.gov website. Seemingly an easy KEEP call here. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 22 February 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year (2011 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Film still has no evidence of production. Source provide indicates an "untitled romantic comedy", only actors are provided. BOVINEBOY2008 17:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~If the situation is same as in the last AFD, then we can add the ((db-repost)) template. So I recommend a speedy close and adding the template. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)~~ (Struck out recommendation. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Not the same situation as last November. The beginning of principle filming has now been confirmed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This time, Keep and expand and further source. In June 1010, One India reported filming was to begin August 2010.[13] This was repeated in Mangalore News.[14] So last November it failed WP:NFF. However, in December 2010, principle filming was confirmed when One India reported that weather had (temporarily) halted it.[15] ~~More coverage in January 2011 when Times of India reported that while the film had been on hold for two years, its being picked up again had given "new life" to Yamla Pagla Deewana.[16]~~ At the end of Film Journal reported that Sunny Deol and Kangana Ranaut had finished New York shots for the film,[17] and in February 2011, South Asia Mail announced completion of production ~~and plans for a worldwide rlease.~~[18] This time it is not too soon, as priciple filming has ~~finished~~ been confirmed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient notability, though the article could reflect this coverage. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do some work on it... but will also invite User:Sodabottle. He's my go-to guy for Indian cinema. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! To verify, this film is titled Yamla Pagla Deewana, right? I added that to the article but was not 100% sure. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Different film. So I took it out. Yamla Pagla Deewana was released in December 2010 and was being promoted by Sunny Deol when he was finishing the New York portion of Happy New Year. But thanks. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I put the AfD without doing a good enough search for sources. Thank you for the catch Michael. BOVINEBOY2008 00:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a good AFD nomination of recreated material... but the fact that it had finally entered principle filming was not some major headline. Had I not taken a look and ammended it, the darn thing might have been deleted... or even for copyvio. Compare the earlier "Production" text[19] with its original single source.[20] Yikes. I was glad to be able to correct this as I added additional sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 21 February 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) 00:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Anna Rigel[edit]

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

The article fails WP:V and appears to be a hoax created by a known sock-puppeteer to attract traffic to charlotteannarigel.com. There is no evidence that anyone authored the listed works under this name. Speedy rejected so raising for wider discussion as recommended. Fæ (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined the speedy deletion request, and I know nothing of the alleged sockpuppeting (do we need an SPI?). However, Worldcat returns zero results on a search for her name. At best, she is non-notable. LadyofShalott 17:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See the block notice on the article creator's talk page User talk:Delta85 or go directly to the closed SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delta85. Fæ (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That does clarify things. LadyofShalott 17:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't sure if speedy-deletion would work. I came across this because it was linked from the Third Crusade article, because Rigel supposedly coauthored the "Chronicle of the Third Crusade", which (if it is the work that I know) is patently untrue. Then I couldn't find her name in any of the other works listed in the article or on her website, and the bits that were in English were terrible, which made it hard to believe she was a biographer of English WWII veterans. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some rather extensive checking yesterday the the European library catalogs and book dealer listings, including the available Danish catalogs. She does exist. She is a writer. The most I can find she has written is a preface to a book, probably some small chapters in biographical works, and possible a few short stories. Not a hoax, but not remotely notable. I think a SNOW delete is in order. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I find it odd that the bibliography appears fabricated when the real person exists. This could conceivably be a form of subtle personal attack but I could see nothing in the original text which included a number of unsourced personal details (here) that would make this clear, however I suggest caution if only because the motivation for adding apparently spurious information is unknown. Fæ (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not exactly fabricated; she may have made minor contributions to the works listed. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is curious. It could be some sort of strange attack-BLP by trying to make the person look bad. Whatever the reason, a fake bibliography is most certainly not something we need here. LadyofShalott 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All said. Greets, Niemot^{Talk to me!} 18:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 26 February 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) 00:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Bass[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the general and author notability guidelines. The only thing saving this from an A7 speedy deletion is the fact that the subject has produced a self-published book. -- Lear's Fool 04:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. ~~This is someone engaging in self-promotion. It was an excuse to post another article about his non-notable book.~~ I marked it for speedy, which was rejected on procedural grounds (fair enough) by [[User:Lear's Fool]; he then PRODded the article, which the original author promptly took down. Salting may be necessary. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the subject was not the original author, as evidence below. My apologies for the mistaken assumption, but my motion to delete stands. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just noticed my article on here but some of the facts are wrong. Who do I talk to about having them changed/taken out? Thanks! -Alanbasswriting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbasswriting (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably be a moot point, as you do not appear to meet our notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me)

Ah, okay. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbasswriting (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be notable some day. If the book gets taken up by a notable publisher and sells well enough, maybe. As to changing things, anyone can do that (but beware of WP:COI, our policy on conflict of interest) but unless the intention is to demonstrate compliance with our notability requirements, I wouldn't bother. Keep up the writing, but try and get with a recognised publisher. Only use self-pub if all else fails - and even then consider if the rejecters are really a load of biased shit-heads or if they have a point that needs addressing. Peridon (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not notable at all, I'm not sure where this page came from. But thanks, I appreciate it. FYI, self-publishing was used at the advice of a colleague who also published a book. Not relevant, but still :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbasswriting (talk • contribs) 05:22, 23 February 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect, or restoration of this content if and when there are reliable sources that discuss the film. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder 2 (film)[edit]

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

Prod (fails WP:NFF) was contested by the article's author without explanation, so setting up a deletion discussion instead. No comments myself, apart that the movie hasn't been released yet and that this needs sources badly. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FUTURE and WP:NFF. It's not notable at the moment and should wait until it is released. Then, if it is notable, it can be created again. --Slon02 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, it needs to be renamed Murder 2 (film), since this is not the article on second degree murder - commonly called "murder 2". 65.95.14.96 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Shall I move it immediately, or should we wait until the discussion is complete? Zakhalesh (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it can be boldly moved, since the article in question is the film, because of the content, not the title of the article. Just update the deletion discussion to point to the right pagename. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done, done and done. Any problems, inform me or fix yourself. Zakhalesh (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think there is some confusion here. We can have an article about a film before it is released because there is usually coverage about its production. The threshold is the start of filming because before then, it is not near-certain that a film will be made. Do we know whether or not filming has started on this sequel? If it has, then the article can be kept. If it has not, then it could be redirected to a more developed "Sequel" section at Murder (film). If filming begins, the sequel article can be recreated. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps per WP:NFF we might set a redirect to something about this upcoming film in the Mahesh Bhatt article or to a section on the sequel at Murder (film). Latest news sources still refer to it in future tense.[21] So, as principle filming has not been confirmed, this one does not have nearly the persistance or depth of coverage that might allow a stand-alone article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 21 February 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. - given the existing redirect from Anjel JohnCD (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anjel (Girl Group)[edit]

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

Unnecessary duplication. Although two members of the group are notable and have their own articles, the group's label folded before they actually released any music. Anjel is already a redirect to Destiny's Child. Would be CSD A10, but it's already been PROD'd, hence this AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Destiny's Child, just like Anjel is. The consensus at Anjel's AFD was to merge it into Destiny's Child, and I see no reason to not do the same here. --Slon02 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anjel already exists as a redirect to Destiny's Child so I fail to see how Anjel with a disambiguator added to the title is a helpful redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 23 February 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) 00:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Barr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:ATHLETE as has not played in a fully professional league. G4 doesn't apply for the previous discussions as he's played for some clubs now, but not the right ones. Ged UK 14:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nominators sums it up nicely. This guy is not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete Recreation of previous material with some additional irrelevancy thrown in. Stu.W UK (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Ged UK (the nominator) declined a G4 on this, and explained the reasoning pretty well on my talk page. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 06:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, and this constant deletion and re-creation is just a waste of everyone's time. Giant Snowman 15:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG criteria for inclusion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:14, 21 February 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) 00:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Mac[edit]

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

No reference to notability. He is a DJ on a minor local community radio station. Even the article about his station doesn't contain references to notability Pi (Talk to me! ) 13:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article does not establish notability and searching does not turn up much. jonkerz ♠ 23:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no apparant notability to this person and no references are present at this time.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:35, 21 February 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) 01:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjibsaha Aniketa (writer)[edit]

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

Non notable author/academic who fails WP:N, WP:PROF. The article was created and edited almost exclusively by the subject. I prodded it earlier, but the subject blanked the prod notice. Notability is not established through references from reliable sources. Ragib (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 23:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nothing on scholar, books or news. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The sources are either self-published or unverifiable: Here is an example of the poetry:

This is the/Teen girl!/ I have ever/Seen her/Do you entrust me long/I will cover you up/With the mountain herbs/ And kindle the beauty/ Beauty of love.

The fact that the poetry (or its translation) is drivel does not, of course, make it unnotable; William McGonagall and Khalil Gibran have articles. However, the lack of reliable sources does. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:30, 14 February 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, Stifle (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xxan. No reliable references. Definitely fails notability, may fail WP:V, seeing Gnews, Gbooks, scholar, etc cannot confirm and external links in article are to what looks like a self-publishing site. Ray^Talk 19:23, 22 February 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) 00:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest trains in India[edit]

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

Same logic as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fastest trains in China, essentially original research. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep both or delete both. Python eggs (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Python eggs, delete both or keep both. 123Hedgehog456 14:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The China article has already been deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the logic expressed at the linked AfD. WP:OR, subject to change, edit-war bait. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 21 February 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 Withdrawn, the nominator being the only editor in favor of Deletion prior to that withdrawal. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Lawrence (photographer)[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Only sources are a personal website, personal blog, and a blog interview. None are reliable. Cind.amuse 05:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources, and as creator of the Twilight posters (whatever I may personally think of that ~~shite~~ series) I believe he passes WP:CREATIVE. I went to add the sources and the computer crashed. I'm too frustrated to enter it all again now, but a search for "Joey Lawrence" photographer in the Google News Archives shows several articles on him as a young and extremely good photographer. He was interviewed by MTV and his documentary on photographing Ethiopian Elders is very interesting. - ManicSpider (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —ManicSpider (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 4 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops Forgot this guy - I'll go find those sources again now. - ManicSpider (talk) 00:47, 11 February 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, Stifle (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on ManicSpider's excellent improvements and added sources[22]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do agree we now have the WP:RS -- especially with that National Post profile -- to indicate notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw due to sufficient reliable sources to support notability. Cind.amuse 09:46, 22 February 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) 01:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vollrath[edit]

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

Noting in the article indicates why the company is notable. Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself noted Vollrath is global; this indicates the company is notable-the article should be kept-thank you-RFD (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not interpret WP:Company to mean that international companies are automatically considered notable. I cannot find any significant independent sources referring to this company, and thus should be deleted.Wkharrisjr (talk) 05:44, 5 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the largest employers in Sheboygan County, and on par with Kohler Company, which is nowhere near deletion, and mainly an institutional cookware company rather than a consumer brand like T-Fal. The references are there and a true reason for deletion has not been listed within the rationale. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 11 February 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, Stifle (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons that I stated on February 4. I neeed to make this clearer. Thank you-RFD (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article desperately needs a rewrite and a trimming down, as well as the addition of better sources. But the company is clearly notable as shown by the large amount of significant coverage found at Google News Archive. There are many articles from the Milwaukee Sentinel and quite a few from the New York Times. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 26 February 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. J04n(talk page) 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Anne Kenworthy[edit]

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

Are there notability guidelines for pimps? No joke. Or does WP:ANYBIO apply? In that case, I don't see notability. Also, Aaronlangtrees (talk · contribs) seems to have a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have no such notability guideline, but she is a madam, operating large and notable brothels with the tacit approval of the local governments. She has been covered extensively in reliable sources including the New York Times as well as many in Australia. She's notable. Cullen328 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328 and COI is not a reason for deletion but for clean up. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are no special notability requirements for madams, but that only means that she has to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. She does. --NellieBly (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 00:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seems to be enough coverage in reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, there's no shortage of sources (she's had local/national/international media attention) so there's plenty of material to work from. Shouldn't take too much work to overcome the COI influence, and the article is not too bad as it stands currently. Katherine (talk) 10:04, 24 February 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) 01:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Democratic Party[edit]

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

Minor political pressure group who fail notability guidelines, and is not contesting the upcoming general election. This is admitted by the principal editor of the page who is involved with the group. There may be a case to recreate if the group does eventually become more substantial.Lozleader (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Not a notable group. Snappy (talk) 21:47, 12 February 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, lifebaka++ 10:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with regret - until they have had some people elected.Red Hurley (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May be notable depending on how many members they've got. I couldn't find this information. If it is a minor group, than delete but if they're growing and get their members elected, than keep. --Viticulturist99 (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume they have fewer than 300 members (number needed to register as a party), and they are not going to have any members elected in the short to medium term, if at all, as they are not contesting any elections.Lozleader (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly looks like fewer than 300 members: "In Ireland a political party needs 300 recorded members to be considered for recognition. You can help us by agreeing to be counted as a registered member of the IDP." [23]Lozleader (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. We can recreate the article when/if they become notable. --Badvibes101 (talk) 14:20, 23 February 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. J04n(talk page) 12:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norby Test[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original research article about the author's ideas on artificial intelligence. On the talk page he states that he hopes "it will garner interest", that he has failed to get his ideas published in peer reviewed journals and that this material has not been published elsewhere. Classic OR. andy (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete • I'd be willing to reconsider if Norby had peer-published. The concept of computers programming computers is at least half a century old, and the practice (in varying degrees), is almost as old as practiced by Paul Abrahams, Michael Harrison, and others. The narrower unique part is the 'test' Norby proposes. My take is publish or perish, and from a dire lack of prior citations, the article perishes from lack of publishing. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a complete lack of reliable sources discussing this topic at all, let alone in depth. It seems to be made up and therefore not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to fail core policies, including WP:OR, WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:V. I also searched Google without finding references. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 20 February 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. G4 recreation (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alli L!ve) Salted to match the other version Ged UK 10:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Live[edit]

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

There are no references that provide or prove any of the information in the article, as well as there is no record of this figure anywhere on the internet. RioDej (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC) — RioDej (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourcable violation of WP:BLP and likley hoax. The only' web sources found are two wiki-mirrors.[24] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 21 February 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 speedily deleted (A7) by User:NawlinWiki. cab (call) 08:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott laudati[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements Eeekster (talk) 05:17, 19 February 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) 00:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jones Expressway[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:USRD/NT. Detcin (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This appears somewhat notable as it is a controlled-access road, yet it also appears like another city street. Dough 48 72 22:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced and has at least one interesting feature in its name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reference is a Google Map. Detcin (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of references available by clicking the "news" button up above here. Admr Boltz 23:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the references available by clicking the "news" button are about I-465 or I-70, not Sam Jones. The few article about Sam Jones are dead links.Detcin (talk) 16:46, 25 February 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. Merging is not a subject for AfD, so conclusion on that topic to be drawn from this close.Detcin (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Commerce Connector[edit]

Not notable per WP:USRD/NT. Detcin (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be a proposal for what would have been a notable road. A little expansion and this can be a decent article. Dough 48 72 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a proposed limited-access toll road (it is in fact a freeway despite not being free!), this should be notable. Just because something is not built does not make it non-notable. Now, this might possibly be best merged into Southern Indiana Toll Road, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. V. Subbamma[edit]

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

There seems to be some puffery here, but nothing that actually implies notability. Her chief claim to notability would be as Principal of Charlotte Swenson Memorial Bible Training School, but this doesn't seem to qualify as a "major academic institution" under WP:Prof#C6. St Anselm (talk) 03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 19:19, 22 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Penner[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. He was Principal of Baptist Theological Seminary, but this doesn't seem to qualify as a "major academic institution" under WP:Prof#C6. St Anselm (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Ray^Talk 19:18, 22 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. J. Christie Kumar[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. He was Principal of Andhra Christian Theological College for a time, but this doesn't seem to qualify as a "major academic institution" under WP:Prof#C6. St Anselm (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —St Anselm (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 19:20, 22 February 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 Mil_Mi-8#Notable_accidents. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heerodden helicopter accident[edit]

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

Not notable helicopter accident, in addition to being unsourced. The accident resulted in no changes in flight regulations, safety standards, and so on. No notable people were killed. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 03:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would suspect that, altough it meets WP:AIRCRASH's standards for inclusion in an article on the type (or the location), it fails the WP:GNG and, thus, shouldn't have a stand-alone article. Nothing especially noteworthy about the crash; for one reason or another, Russian helicopters crash relatively often, and Wikipedia is not a directory of aircraft accidents. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. - BilCat (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - news event of no lasting significance or notability. Dlabtot (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mil Mi-8, where brief details should be given of the accident under an "Accidents and incidents" section. As a large helicopter, an accident resulting in a write-off should be at least notable enough to be mentioned. BTW, the article is not unsourced, there is a link to a source on the cause of the accident in the article. Mjroots (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge 2-3 sentence summary to Mil Mi-8. There needs to be an Accidents section started there for this, but that seems fine. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I added an entry on this at Mil Mi-8#Notable accidents with references. This accident article can either be deleted or redirected there as far as I'm concerned. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable enough for a stand-alone article but as has been said no reason why it cant be mentioned in the Mi-8 article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 20 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howard C. Reiche School[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill elementary school in the Portland Public Schools. Was suggested this be nominated from the AfD discussion over Howard C. Reiche. Bgwhite (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to West_End_(Portland,_Maine)#Education (unless a more specific target is available). Standard procedure for nn elementary schools. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Deferring to others. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge/redirect as suggested by Osborn. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a demonstrated history of sources which cover the school in-depth. For example, `Failing' label leaves Reiche success behind discusses the educational situation at the school. Howard C. Reiche Community School discusses multiculturalism at the school and is an academic paper devoted entirely to the topic of the school.--TM 15:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an elementary school with absolutely no standout differences or coverage beyond run of the mill school issues. I guess if there's somewhere especially fitting a bit of the info should be merged. I've revised my opinion and have explained it below.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on the Howard C. Reiche Community School article found by TM. Only slight concern with this is that it was written by someone who taught at the school (though I think that was only for the purpose of writing the article). Ravendrop 20:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. My first reaction was to merge to Portland Public Schools (Maine), but that graduate-student paper about the school provides a lot of solid information about the school, which is not exactly a run-of-the-mill school, given the population it serves. I've expanded the article a bit, based on that source. --Orlady (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Changed to "keep" after finding an architecture thesis about the school (I've added it to the article) and learning that the building also houses a public library, a community center, public swimming pool, gym, and community health clinic. That makes it a lot more important to the community than if it were only a school It also was a Blue Ribbon School in 1991-1992 -- it has been asserted in the past that Blue Ribbon Schools should be considered notable. --Orlady (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating the article. I have a question. The information from the graduate-student paper is from 2004 when there was 500 students and most info in the wiki article is from 2004. Seven years later, there are 300 students. Would the time difference and change in enrollment make a difference on if to keep/delete the article? With the district and school web sites are so bad, sure wish we could glean more info from them. In the same neighborhood, there is a private school called Waynflete School.Bgwhite (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. If this school is notable based on independent coverage received in the past or accomplishments in the past, it's still notable. --Orlady (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article that's been mentioned a few times over at this page certainly made me put a lot of thinking into this AfD. However, after a bit more studying I've kept the same conclusion of delete. Essentially, I held this social study (or social experiment) to the same standards I'd hold any scientific study. If an experiment or study in, say, biology takes place in a specific stream, for example, and the results of the study are very informative and notable, that does not change the notability of the stream. This study was conducted at the school, but, just as the stream is not made notable by the study taking place there, the school does not become notable either. Sorry if none of that makes sense, it's late and my computer keeps making clicks and moves that I don't want it to.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is how notability works at Wikipedia. If multiple, independent and non-trivial sources cover a subject, it is considered notable whether it is a small stream, an elementary school or New York City.--TM 15:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seeing that this AfD started due to discussion of an article about the school's presumptive namesake, I think it worthwhile to comment that it appears likely that the namesake was a longtime school principal in Portland. I don't know if he's the same person who was associated with the ski patrol, but I did find a national magazine article from 1952 that quoted Howard C. Reiche and identified him as the principal of a Portland high school. --Orlady (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further supporting the fact that this school meets the WP:GNG, the article now cites 6 different sources independent from the school, the latest one being a book about public education in America. --Orlady (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep previous practice is that Blue Ribbon schools are notable DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isn't any school, even a one-room one from 1900, "notable"? Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Billy, there are a lot of schools that are not notable. Many schools lack the evidence of notability that is needed to satisfy the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It's unusual for an elementary school to have received as much attention as this one has. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've struck out my delete vote above. This article has undergone a substantial improvement since its nomination, and I'd like to commend Orlady for this cleanup.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:00, 26 February 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Weather Service[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain why he doesn't consider the sources in the article and found by the Google News archive search linked above are insufficient, rather than just say "just not notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does appear to be significant news coverage about the company; see for example this from the New York Times. Google News Archive finds 8 pages of hits. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 19 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there are two news references to it on the article, the NY Times article notes that it played a role in a notable event, as have many organisations, companies and people who are not notable enough for an article. The Dispatches article doesn't seem to mention the company by name. The other references are links to the company's own website. I don't think the company is notable. Pi (Talk to me! ) 02:26, 19 February 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo (artist)[edit]

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

I don't see how this meets WP:ARTIST. Looks more like WP:PROMO by single-purpose account Parvatee (talk · contribs). --bender235 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll wait to see if anyone else turns up further sources, or can more closely scrutinize the ones I've found, and compare to policy. The creator of the article should have done all this, of course, but evidently wasn't aware of the necessity... I spent maybe ninety minutes and couldn't see anything that unequivocally meets WP:ARTIST, but want to give time for possible further developments before !voting. (1) Amazon has the 2005 book about him, "Alias MAMBO", but lists the subject himself as the author. The book was published by what appears, at my first inspection, to be a tiny publisher with a gallery, or perhaps a gallery with a captive publishing arm, Kitchen93. ( This was the most substantial information I saw about this publisher. ) Some additional investigation is probably in order to determine the nature of this book more precisely. (2) There was one hit I found for a NY Times article, but it barely mentions our subject; just the briefest reference. (3) There was this article, in French, that mentions the subject, but seemingly only in passing. My French is very poor, but the article appears also only to include a mention of the subject. Perhaps someone who's fluent could take a look? (4) There's a Chicago Tribune article that seems to me to be the most unequivocal source I've seen re a claim toward possible notability. Its online access is somewhat convoluted. Here's a free abstract, and here's page one of an alternate, non-paywall access route to the same article, but it's chopped up into five pages with (evidently) no single-page view available; the subsequent pages can be accessed sequentially, however. The article is about the five-member group of artists our subject works with, named "La Force Alphabetick" or just "La Force", for short, and about the man himself, of course, as one of the five members, in the context of the group's creation of a mural in Chicago. This will need closer review ( I have no more time for it today, and can't promise I'll get back to this; this kind of art isn't really my "thing" at all ) to judge how it contributes to notability, but here's everything this Chicago Tribune article has to say about "Mambo" directly (as opposed to what it has to say about the other group members, the way they work together, etc) along with some excerpts that may speak to his notability indirectly:

La Force Alphabetick began in the late '80s as a collective of graffiti artists painting illegally on the Metro, the Paris subway. And to this day, they keep the single-word monikers common to graffiti artists. The mural bears no French last names; instead one finds "Sib," a k a Sebastian de Dehn; "Mambo" (Flavien de Marigny); "Spirit" (Emmanuel Garcias); and "Rico" (Eric Gassan) ... [snip] ... As the collective aged, it evolved from strictly spray paint to acrylics, gouache, oil. Today, says Mambo, "our only objective is colors." ... [snip] ...DZine (pronounced "design"), a 24-year-old South Side native whose spray-can art has been exhibited in local galleries as well as in Europe, met La Force in summer 1992, when both exhibited at a government show in Paris' Porte de Clichy. In February, they first worked together, painting what they call "non-permission" pieces in Paris.... In May, DZine brought La Force to Chicago to work with him on a mural at Roberto Clemente High School, and to meet with the Chicago Public Art Group and discuss doing a publicly funded mural here. Widely recognized as a key proponent for muralism's rebirth in the '70s, CPAG was founded by Weber and fellow wall-painter William Walker, pulling off projects in more than 100 Chicago neighborhoods... CPAG director Jon Pounds says the originality of La Force's murals drew him immediately, because "their work was remarkably different from other work in the States, not like the wild-style or cartoonish work common to spray-can art." And he appreciated La Force's commitment to collaboration, both with one another and with the communities around their mural sites... [snip] ... Thus Weber entered the picture, years after he and DZine first discussed doing a project together.Weber has painted murals in Chicago for more than a quarter-century, to the point where he has lost track of all the projects. He guesses he has "20 to 30 extant murals, though many have been covered up by now." ... [snip] ... Then came the call. Midway through the project, Ald. Tom Allen (38th) phoned Bill Southwick, the youth center's executive director, and demanded that work on the mural stop immediately. "All of a sudden I started getting a lot of phone calls objecting to the mural," Allen said. "Graffiti is a hot-button issue in any neighborhood. I explained that this is not graffiti, but any kind of painting on a wall is pretty volatile." ... [snip] ... La Force was used to that stigma, confusing gangbangers' territorial scrawls with artists' murals. "There are many taggers in Paris," Spirit explains, "and people tend to assimilate graffiti, thugs, tags and their own nightmares." ...After a day and a half, the muralists resumed work, having assuaged the locals. But conflicts over design continued. Just as the mural neared completion, youth center administrators demanded that the artists redo a frieze of images at ground level, painted by Mambo in classic graffiti-style. Mambo was livid... [snip] ... DZine felt trapped in the middle. "I thought that the change was ridiculous. But as the lead artist I had to consider that the center had contributed money toward the work, and gave us fairly complete creative control," he says... "Yet here was Mambo, who comes from France, where the government gives artists money and total creative control for murals. So Mambo felt that artistically speaking, he was being raped." ... Nevertheless, the frieze disappeared, which cost them two days' work, cutting it close to the time La Force had left before returning to Paris... [snip]... "There are still a lot of people who don't like it and don't want it," Allen said. "I'm not sure why they painted it. Many people said (that) if this is their art project, let them do it inside." ... Does that bother La Force? "We want to provoke people," Spirit says. "The piece was scary in that it had no faces, with arms going in all directions. To whom do these arms belong?

Somewhat strangely, none of these foregoing sources seem to be indexed by the behemoth proprietary databases ProQuest, GeneralOneFile, and the many other news indexing databases I checked; those databases returned no hits at all across multiple search strings for this subject. None of these had any hits, and, in combination with the other proprietary databases I checked, there wasn't a single hit for this artist. I don't have a good idea how much press "street artist", ie former (?) graffiti artists need to have before they merit inclusion here. I do know that it's considered a viable art form by a great many people, though. Closer analysis of these sources, and of any others that can be found, seems called for in this case. Recruiting an art critic or art historian who knows this area of art would be helpful here, if we have any such domain experts on Wikipedia who could be asked for assistance. A very rough presentation here; I'm pressed for time just now.

If anyone wants to take the time to refactor this, perhaps to collapse the long excerpt from the Chicago Tribune, or move some of it to article talk, please feel free. I may come back by in a day or two and try to do that myself if I can find the time, but I'm out of that (time) for this right now. I'd very strongly suggest that the article's creator take the preliminary work I've done here and incorporate it into the article appropriately, as soon as possible, since doing so might help save it from deletion. Does anyone know how the article rescue squad works? Maybe some of the volunteers there could assist the article's creator in that effort. In haste, – OhioStandard (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick addition: I see that the single-purpose account user who created this article is no longer active, so no help there. – OhioStandard (talk) 22:59, 18 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've thought more about this, and although I don't have any additional time to devote to researching notability, I'm going to !vote to keep. It's my impression that although "street art" isn't especially well followed or accepted by mainstream culture, that this artist has nevertheless recieved a significant amount of coverage for the genre he works in. I'd be open to reversing my position on this, however, if anyone who feels strongly that this should be deleted is willing to take the time to perform a careful analysis of notability, expanding on the "hints" I gave above, and perhaps organizing that so it's more easily taken in and understood by editors who don't want the tl'dr version. – OhioStandard (talk) 13:43, 24 February 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) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hua Chunhui[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. His only notability comes from brief mentions in the sources covering his wife/fiancée. Ironholds (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't have a problem with it being deleted. I was trying to expand coverage of Chinese Dissidents, but he's not mentioned outside of his wife's situation. A confirming google archives search is here. Ocaasi (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with deletion here. Although his story may be interesting, the article doesn't provide this information, or references to it. He was involved in an interesting event, but I don't think that's sufficient for notability Pi (Talk to me! ) 02:33, 19 February 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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMedia.ca[edit]

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

The article fails to establish notability, and also reads like a brochure rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Ironic since they advocate for net neutrality. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page is its in infancy. Can we please give time for people to rewrite it properly. OpenMedia.ca has a huge significance in Canada, just check out Google News. I'm still in the process of gathering sources to write meaningful text. Again, just check out Google News if you are looking for notability. --FineWolf (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for reading like a brochure... I only see facts backed by news articles from major national media sources (CBC, Montreal Gazette, etc.). I don't see a brochure. --FineWolf (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FineWolf has few edits not related to this article, and none since 19 August 2010

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is now four days since FineWolf wrote "Can we please give time for people to rewrite it properly", and no attempt at all has been made to improve the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unambiguously promotional article, telling us that they "engage, educate and empower", that they have "spearheaded" campaigns, and taht tehy are "the force behind" an "initiative" "which celebrates innovative and independent media". JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Promotional verbiage notwithstanding, the organization meets notability guidelines by way of coverage by the CBC, the Montreal Gazette and 24Hours. PK T(alk) 15:39, 16 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 19 February 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Ebner[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of the unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 17:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:57, 12 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion. The article doesn't provide references to his notability. Although the films he worked on may be notable, that doesn't imply his own notability. A Google search for his name doesn't come up with much that implies notability either. Pi (Talk to me! ) 02:32, 19 February 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) 01:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Ademi[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E; the coverage does not demonstrate the need for an individual article. Ironholds (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. She gets lots of news hits. It is far too early to tell where her career is going. Let's wait a week. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yees. You appreciate that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't work that way, right? Ironholds (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for an article of her own (yet, at least) --|★|BignBad|★| 02:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Deletion. As far as I can tell by reading the article on American Idol, there are over 300 people who have got as far as she has. And her other career seems to just be YouTube. If she wins AI, or becomes more successful in the future, that is the time for a Wikipedia article. I don't really believe that her success is more than speculation of future success Pi (Talk to me! ) 02:38, 19 February 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) 01:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Smyth (producer)[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Will notify WikiProject Punk music to see if anyone there has any books that can help. J04n(talk page) 18:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:25, 12 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find anything to satisfy WP:V.--Michig (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few search engine hits that are not WP or social networks. Not very significant. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Lovely guy.Red Hurley (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to indicate notability. Snappy (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly as unsourced and non notable per WP:BIO.--Badvibes101 (talk) 03:22, 23 February 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 redirected. There is already a brief mention at the observatory article, any further content worth salvaging can be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airdrie Astronomical Association (AAA)[edit]

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

Previously speedied and salted at Airdrie Astronomical Association, but doesn't appear to meet any CSD for notability or re-creation; I think the notability is questionable, and it ought to be discussed. —innotata 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 15:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 15:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the encyclopaedic information to Airdrie Public Observatory. The observatory itself looks notable, but all the third-party coverage about AAA seems to be in stories about the observatory. The fact that AAA are now the curators probably does belong in the article about the observatory, but the blow-by-blow account of the association's history and detailed accounts of what events the association's history isn't what Wikipedia is for - that belongs on the association's own website. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:53, 13 February 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any encyclopaedic content into Airdrie Public Observatory as suggested by Chris Neville-Smith; possibly replace with a redirect to that page. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 19 February 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) 01:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Lee[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL; page has been here since 2009 with no activity in months and no recent information, or sources. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 01:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion. The existance of the album is even contradicted by the artist's own wikipedi article. I think that a two-year-old blog post is not sufficient to assume that the album is coming out, let along that it's notable. Pi (Talk to me! ) 02:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it should have been deleted a long time ago.--The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 22:40, 19 February 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) 01:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argentum Online[edit]

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

challenged prod. Unreferenced, orphan article. Not clear how this game meeting notability guidelines. A google search on the title brings up nothing in books or news and primary sources or download sites. RadioFan (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was created today, and how it's not inconceivable that a computer game like this could be notable, I'm inclined to allow the author some time to improve the article and justify notability. If he doesn't then I'd support a deletion Pi (Talk to me! ) 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of references for notability Pi (Talk to me! ) 09:04, 20 February 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) 02:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources are given on the page and it is a poorly written artical. Skullbird11 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is actually the 3rd time this topic has been PROD'd. So although it this version has only recently been written, I feel this AfD is a good opportunity to examine the game's notability. The custom VG Google search shows only one hit: a trivial mention at Gamasutra [25]. I could find nothing compelling with a broader search - just directory and download sites. The author's objection to the PROD was 1) The game exists, and 2) The Spanish wikipedia has an article. I'm sorry, but this is not sufficient for inclusion here. Marasmusine (talk) 13:06, 19 February 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) 01:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamrock Dashtop[edit]

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

This is one of a series of promotional webpages for this company and its founder, including categories that are filled with promo copy: Category:Dashtop and Category:Dashtop computers. And articles that are better candidates for speedy deletion: Yasir Kamran, Kamrock Computers. While the others were created today, this has been around for awhile, and has some references, but none that are to third-party sources. It clearly fails WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Same user has created Dashtop computers and Dashtop. ... discospinster _talk 01:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Actually, I tagged it for a speedy about the same time as the AfD, for nom's reasons. I have told the author about WP:COI, but he's pressing on regardless. PhGustaf (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article. Dlabtot (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Before the recent spate of edits by the self-identified owner of the company, the article failed notability, and now it's overly promotional as well. --bonadea contributions talk 10:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, promotional. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 17:32, 19 February 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.