< 7 January	9 January >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sleazy (Kesha song)[edit]

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

According to WP:NSONG "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." <--- One review, one mention of its release and 2 references retaining to the album is not past stub class. I wrote the article two months ago, and it has not received significant coverage in any way shape or form, so per WP:BOLD ive redirected the article. Lets break this down some more, according to WP:N and more importantly, WP:GNG an article is only allowed if the topic has received significant coverage, again, one review is not at all significant coverage, if you think so, you need to re-read WP:N and WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." All information is covered under Cannibal (EP), so no significant coverage. Please weigh in. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song charted in Canada and US, and this is enough for have its own article. The ~~owner~~ main contributor of the article redirected it because all his work will be crap when he intend to nominate Cannibal (EP), We R Who We R (and upcoming singles) to be joined with Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Animal (album)/archive1. See this and its reason for deletion. Redirect because it is a "stub", excuse me but according to him this is not a stub. Also how many articles must be redirected due they are stubs, and if you are going to argue something not use the stupid argument "OTHERSTUFFEXIST", use it until WP:OSE really stop being an essay and become a rule. Tbhotch^™ and © 02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is absolutely one of the reasons i redirected the article. According to wikipedia rules, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material", are you going to tell me that this article has significant coverage when we cant even identify the genre? Now your argument is that the song charted? so its notable? Okay, my argument to that is, per WP:NSONG, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable", key word in this, is probably, not every charting song gets a page, WP:NSONG goes on to say "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." So your vote to keep the article is based on personal opinion not on factual based rules. Also, you said i called the song Start Class, truthfully i didnt read the guidelines on that, i thought Start came before Stub, that was my fault but im not going to change it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where the original researches are, because I see no statement without a proper source (at least in its current status). Yes informaton is difficult to find, but you can work with stuff you already have 1 2 3 4. Tbhotch^™ and © 02:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source one, "raves that “the beat so fat gonna make me come” on the apropos “Sleazy,” " , not a review, nothing to do with composition. Source four is already in the article. Are you beginning to see why i redirected the article?, it is extremely difficult and i dont think at all possible to expand this stub. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the dictionary "apropos" means "Of an appropriate or pertinent nature", it is an adjetive, therefore it is a review in a single word. BTW I said difficult, not impossible. Tbhotch^™ and © 02:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahah, oops, didnt even notice thought it meant something completely different. But as i said in the rule above, articles unlikely (you just said difficult) are to be redirected, this is what i am trying to get across, the chances of this expanding beyond stub class is very, very unlikely. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's check if this article is a stub or a start-class article, according to the quality scale used by WP:SONGS:

Stub: The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information (neither) that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible (neither), an article of any length falls into this category.

Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.

- As you can read "Sleazy" is not a stub, (We've Got) Honey Love is a stub.
Start: The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent (we can ignore this points, this is untrue in this article); but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability (NSONGS) and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.

- As you can read, this article meets the start-class criteria. Tbhotch^™ and © 03:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub, "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article." This is not a detailed meaningful article. You my argue this if you wish, but we should both back off and let other weigh in. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is a small article, it is not a stub and fits in with the notability guidelines and WP:NSONG. It's size is only because it is a promo single, as most other promo singles I've seen are about the same size, if not smaller than this article. --Cprice1000talk2me 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Lakeshade's reasonings.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part, about the pseudo-stub article that may never be a GA or the part he wouldn't work in this article because he didn't find information, which by the way, didn't take me one day. Tbhotch^™ and © 04:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry I just based my opinion on the article while looking at the previous version here, (This was where I was directed too the first time I was asked for my opinion) but now that I looked at the new updates I do believe that it can easily have the potential for going beyond a stub, so i now support to keep--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that there is enough sourced material (which passes WP:V and WP:RS) to write a decent article is the proof that the subject is notable. Europe22 (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While a small article, it holds a lot of information, and passes WP:NSONGS. It can be compared to the promotional singles such as Favorite Girl, or Never Let You Go (Justin Bieber song), which contain decent articles, so I believe Sleazy should be kept. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 22:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song charted in the US and Canada, which establishes notability. Nickyp88 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 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) 01:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HIT-5[edit]

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

A boy band that has only released one album that hasn't charted at all, and is highly promotional in tone. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If I were to delete all the fancruft, there would be nothing left (and who cares what their blood types are, anyway?). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, There might be loads of refs. I can't read them though. If you google for Hit-5 郭子渝 there is plenty off stuff on google news (the 郭子渝 added to filter them a bit, so there must be more). I have some real difficulty assessing the value of the sources though, google translate isn't all that, and I just don't know if the sources meet WP:RS. If the fanstuff is gone, it would make for a pretty meager article, and I won't be able to fix much myself, as I can't read sources. (The bloodtypes in the article, though IMO cruft, probably come from Blood type#Cultural beliefs and other claims). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, although checking the international charts HIT-5/郭子渝 didn't show up anywhere, at least that I could find. Then again, I read Japanese, not Chinese, so there may be something I missed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it hasn't charted, if it meets the general notability guidlines of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources then it's a keeper. I just can't judge the sources well. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable coverage of any significance. I guess this could pass A7, but I'm not really sure how it did. — Timneu22 · talk 19:22, 13 January 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. Sounds yummy though. I think I'll run out and get some fajitas :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trini & Carmen's Mexican Cuisine[edit]

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

This organization does not appear to meet WP:CORP. References in the article are self-published or local in nature and to not appear to indicate notability. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single independent source giving more than a brief mention. Written by an editor with a conflict of interest, probably for promotional purposes. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a local restaurant with purely local coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources are truly reliable, opinion polls and reviews. There is no assertion of notability in the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:52, 13 January 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 merge to 2011 Tucson shooting. Blatant merge, apparently already done. There was no need to take this to AfD. Fences&Windows 23:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to shooting of Gabrielle Giffords[edit]

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

I understand that this was created as a fork from 2011_Tucson_shooting#Reactions because the section was too long, but it seems the solution here is to pare down the content. Quoting a long list of politicans' reactions doesn't seem particularly useful or encyclopedic. VQuakr (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Merge with the main article. If length is a problem, the list can be pared down. Nakon 23:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the shooting article. 65.94.44.243 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Kelly ^hi! 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I completely agree, especially since all of these quotes are nearly identical. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge back into 2011 Tucson shooting. There is no need for a separate article on the reactions of the earlier shooting today, this is disproportionate to similar incidents. This reeks of a high level of recentism. –MuZemike 23:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, WP:NOTNEWS, a list of reactions from important figures in the main article is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Main article is not too big to hold this information. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merging would be EDIT WARRING. Already people have said to cut it out of the shooting article citing this sub-article. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging does not surmount to an edit war. And who said it should be spun out? –MuZemike 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Edit warring takes place without consensus. If there is sufficient consensus is formed here to merge rather than delete the content, that is not edit warring, it's consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed huge chunks from the 2011 article citing that there was a sub-article. The problem is that there should be a Wikipedia mechanism where there is a settlement discussion. Otherwise, one discussion says "A" and the other says "B", conflicting discussions. THIS IS THE MAIN POINT THAT SHOULD EMERGE FROM THIS DISCUSSION, THAT THERE SHOULD BE A WIKIPEDIA PROCESS WHERE THERE IS OVERALL DISCUSSION. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is AfD; the only point that will emerge from this discussion is whether or not this article should be deleted (or indeed whether it should be merged into another article). Shouting by typing in uppercase is considered disruptive, please make your point without shouting down others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article. (WP:NOTNEWS) Not all of these quotes are needed but we can definitely add some of them. WE are currently discussing the matter over at the main pages' talk page.--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 23:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim as needed. These things settle out over time, but it's a good deal easier to manage if it's all in one place. Antandrus (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2011 Tucson shooting#Reactions Swimnteach (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The reaction to the incident is not notable by itself. It's only notable in relation to the shooting incident. Many of these quotes are redundant and it's not important that a reader know what ever Representative said about the shooting. —Ute in DC (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Looks like the content has already been merged by the creator. I suggest closure (as well as everybody stepping back a bit). –MuZemike 23:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2011 Tucson shooting. There's a list of reactions on the main article already. Try to avoid deleting any reaction unless the section is too long, or is already listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.201.48 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and deal with any length issues by considering which reactions from the more important figures should stay. Adambro (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
snow close as merge- there's already the discussion on the main shooting page. Per WP:BEFORE, since this could easily be handled with a merge, there was really no need for an AFD to even be opened. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close to Keep The main article has a number of people who only want Boehner's and Obama's reaction so that is why a separate article is needed.Hakkapeliitta (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read WP:SNOW? Nakon 23:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakkapeliitta (talk • contribs)

No problem. Nakon 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into 2011 Tucson shooting#Reactions. KimChee (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and reduce in size - we don't need a record of every single politician's pronouncements about this atrocity.Mattnad (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Expand if necessary. Title should be Reaction to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.Marcus Qwertyus 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge with 2011 Tucson shooting. Tadá. Diego Grez (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me quote something already The content has already been merged back into the article by the Nom, and trimmed down per WP:UNDUE If this does have it's own article it would have to be trimmed down as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for stand-alone article. Gage (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Repeating what others have said, not needed, NOTNEWS. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 8 January 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 (G5), article created by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 18:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Prosenik[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Also note that none of the other players on the same team have their own pages. Epass (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 January 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 The Yogi Bear Show. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger Jones[edit]

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

An article about a non-notable and excessively minor cartoon character from the Yogi Bear cartoons -- he was not a "recurring" character, as the non-referenced article suggess. There is a Ranger Jones character in the new Yogi Bear movie, but it is a small supporting part. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was a recurring character on the cartoons, and is in the film quite a bit. --Hoppybunny (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not even remotely notable or worthy of an independent article, however if merged with the other characters into a single article, it could pass. Jørdan 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. Merge into the movie article though, not a separate list of characters.--v/r - T P 03:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any minor characters like Iron Hand Jones, Ranger Brown, Ranger Jones, Ranger Roubideux Widefox (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Regent of the Seatopian's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- and I'm not just being contrarian here. Arguably, the character is the only one that has any character development in the 2010 film, was played by a notable comedian in that film, and appears throughout the old cartoon series. ~~I think this can be rescued.~~ Popular culture articles have a valid place at the pic-a-nic of Wikipedia Park. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added six citations, including a full TV Guide interview with T.J. Miller about his role as Ranger Jones. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But those articles are really about T.J. Miller and not the cartoon character. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it can't be rescued. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Yogi Bear Show and/or merge if someone ever creates a "Characters" section in that article. None of the six sources added to the article provide significant coverage of Ranger Jones. Each of the articles mentions Ranger Jones exactly once, and then go on to talk at length about something else (usually the actor who portrayed him in the film). The articles are not about Ranger Jones, and they only prove that the character exists. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to merge to The Yogi Bear Show#Characters. Nobody else who suggested a merger ever noted a target. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC) I smerged what was useful, so you folks decide. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/smerge per Snottywong and Bearian. This is a reasonable search term but not deserving of a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:12, 15 January 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. Clear consensus among established editors arguing based on policy and guidelines that this article should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo (Paul) Benedetti[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Somewhat spammy blatant autobiography about an "aquatic designer". Several external links but, correct me if I am wrong, do any of these links actually talk about the guy? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self created article and fails notability for inclusion. Jørdan 03:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as pure spam. I've looked at some of the available (to me) links, and some of them do seem to discuss his work. Unfortunately, they were written by him. As to the article, I've not seen such a load of puffery in some time. "Benedetti is the consummate innovator, who has designed & created a number of industry firsts." "Paolo has experienced Carnival in Venice, Italy." (So bloody what?) "He has explored the House & Gardens of the Virgin Mary (her last known residence)" (It's news to me that any of her residences other than an unidentified stable were known at all.) I won't go on. I will just point out that this is an encyclopaedia, not AboutUs or LinkedIn. The author of the article uses the subject's name as his/her username. If the author is indeed Mr Benedetti, I would point him to WP:COI. If not, he/she is liable to be blocked for impersonation. If this is a bit of paid-for article creation, I would advise Mr Benedetti that he has a good case for asking for a refund. Peridon (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. But lets AGF with the editor and offer instruction rather than affront; he likely doesn't really understand WP. Yopienso (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

== Save this page!! ==

This page is very informative and should be saved. Paul has done good work when we have worked with him. 66.245.217.83 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Charles Hartsog Soils Engineer US Soils[reply]

== SAVE THIS PAGE!! ==

I vote to save this page. Someday, Paolo's works will be coveted like Frank Lloyd Wright's works are today. If you are unhappy with the format of the content, then edit it to your liking. He is obviously a talented individual & published author.Samouel bernstein (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Samouel Bernstein[reply]

== SAVE THIS PAGE ==

It would be a shame for Wikipedia to lose this information. Paolo is a great individual with obvious talent, and his work will be remembered. Questar Pools (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Questar Pools[reply]

== I vote to save this page - SAVE THIS PAGE ==

In my opinion Paolo is one of the most talented watershapers working in the industry at this time. His technical skills are virtually unmatched anywhere, and his attention to even the finest of details sets him apart from the rest. His demand for perfection, coupled with his insatiable quest for knowledge result in breathtaking masterpieces that will last a lifetime.Fluid Dynamics Pools (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Fluid Dynamics Pools[reply]

== SAVE THIS PAGE ==

Keep this page! Having known Paolo since 1998 I have witnessed his tremendous talent and innovative designs first hand. He is a true artist, working with water as his medium. Many of his ideas have been incorporated in others work. He is an industry leader and visonary! Brian Van Bower, President, Aquatic Consultants, Inc. and Genesis 3, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.64.46 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

== SAVE THIS PAGE ==
== Paulo Benedetti and Aquatics Technology ==

Paoulo Benedetti and Aquatics Techonology are a true resource for pool design and construction,and loosing his Wikipedia page would be a great loss for anyone connected to this industry

24.4.116.101 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Dale Foster Laticrete International[reply]

== I also agree to SAVE THIS PAGE. ==

This page is a good resource for the pool industry. With so many industry " experts" its becomes hard to find people with whom the general pool public can rely on. Paul is one people.74.88.154.248 (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)William T Drakeley[reply]

== As Editor of WaterShapes magazine, I also vote to Save this page. ==

Mr. Benedetti is one of the most gifted watershape designers working in the field today. Watershaping, meaning the design and construction of pools, spas, fountains, streams, ponds, sculpture and water features, etc. is nothing less than an architectural art form that is gaining greater and greater recognition as a specific design discipline. Benedetti's wonderfully creative work is an important example of how and why "watershaping" or "water architecture" is such a vibrant and exciting field. -- Eric Herman, editor WaterShapes Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.112.33 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==Save This Page==

This page is provides multiple benefits to the user, (I) it is truthful and informative; (II) it is an accurate depiction of a living person that is one the largest contributers to the watershaping industry; (III) It provides excellent links to the myriad of published works written by, about, or for Paulo Benedetti; Although typical, there is not a rule that an artist cannot become well known until after their passing. Paul, is an Icon to our industry, he contributes to the success of all those who wish to learn from a master in his field, and his writings, his works, and his pursuit of excellence in his field is matched by no other. Leave this page here, as it only strengthens our industry, and the increases the legitimacy of your encyclopedia. ---Rick Chafey -Owner- Red Rock Pools and Spas, and Red Rock Contractors - AZ --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.196.75 (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note[edit]

To all the new accounts posting here: This is not a head count. It is a discussion. Posts that merely say 'I like him' or something similar will probably be disregarded - see WP:ILIKEIT. As there is a very similar style in some of the above posts, may I draw everyone's attention to WP:SOCK - a quaintly named link to Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry? This refers to the use of multiple accounts to try to influence discussions. I am not saying that this is going on, but just in case anyone has the idea of trying it, please look at this policy first. Contravening it can lead to loss of editing privileges. And to all again, please read two more policies: WP:SPAM, our policy on advertising, and WP:NPOV which is about Neutral Point of View and encyclopaedic style. Thank you all. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even "all the new accounts" - it was all done by two edits by IP addresses.

No, to be fair, a lot of these comments were posted on the article talk page by different IPs and accounts, and then moved here in bulk by an IP. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, and is not for promotion, still less self-promotion. References show that he is in the pool business and writes prolifically in glossy pool magazines, and he evidently has a loyal fan-club, but I do not see encyclopedic notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:15, 14 January 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) 01:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. United – Philadelphia Union rivalry[edit]

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

The Philadelphia team has existed for a year. The teams have played a total of two games. The rivalry, such as it is, is insufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. JohnInDC (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not presently, wouldn't be surprised if Philly is added to the Atlantic Cup rivalry sometime in the near-future. 72.219.227.230 (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Since it's too soon, I suppose we can redirect it to MLS rivalry cups? Perhaps its can be its own article within the next few years or when they play multiple matches. Twwalter (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is a cup awarded to the season's winner of this match? JohnInDC (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (preferred) or redirect to MLS rivalry cups. One source saying that the rivalry exists helps, but one sentence and two game results do not a rivalry article make. There needs to be discussion. Since there isn't any, this doesn't belong anywhere but in a list. — KV5 • Talk • 02:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Merging or redirecting presumes there are actually any reliable sources discussing this alleged rivalry in significant detail. I very much doubt there are. Ravenswing 16:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable rivalry. The one source given is speculating that it will/could become a proper rivalry in the future, but this is far too early to tell. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - over a redirect as there does not seem to be any useful, encyclopaedic content Spiderone 10:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two games isn't a rivalry, it's barely even a relationship! Giant Snowman 14:46, 11 January 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) 01:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Kaufmann[edit]

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

Non-notable video director. Fails WP:CREATIVE Dolovis (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that it meets none of the notability criteria suggests it will be impossible to find reliable sources for this article. None of the artists he has produced videos for are that well known.--Patton123 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, fails notability. Jørdan 03:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Involved in several notable videos, but the videos themselves are barely notable and notability isn't inherited.--v/r - T P 03:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 9 January 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 in favor of redirect to Shugo Chara!. (WP:NAC) —Farix (t | c) 22:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shugo Chara!Encore[edit]

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

This article should be deleted per WP:VERIFY, WP:PLOT, and WP:ORIGINAL: The page has no references whatsoever, and contains many original research statements such as "some believe it is just going to show all minor and main characters and what is happening to their life since the Easter climax has finished and their lives are normal". As well, this article is almost exclusively a plot summary, aside from an infobox. In addition, most of the information in the infobox does not relate to the page; only the last box is about the topic of the article. This article also does not contain any wikilinks and is orphaned, although that is pretty minor compared to its other issues. It would take a lot of work to bring this page up to standard, and I think it would be best to have it deleted; if in the future an editor wished to recreate it, they would have a fresh slate. Epass (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shugo Chara!, where it's already covered. Unquestionably the series itself is notable, but we're better off covering this brief coda in the main article, as is standard for manga. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Shugo Chara!. Subject is already covered there along with the reliable sources. We don't need a spin out just to give an excessively detailed plot summary, which is not encyclopedic coverage of a subject. It may be advisable to block the article's creator as this is the seventh time they have recreated this article under different names. (Shugo Chara!Encore!, Shugo chara encore) —Farix (t | c) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; redirecting this page to Shugo Chara! sounds like the best course of action. Epass (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that you are withdrawing the nomination in favor of the redirect? —Farix (t | c) 22:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought one of the possible outcomes from an AfD discussion was the redirect, but if it would be easier for me to just withdraw the nomination, I'm willing to. Epass (talk) 22:35, 8 January 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. This applies to the stub now at Kingdom Hearts III (video game). The longer and substantially different article about the same topic, Kingdom Hearts III, is unaffected by this outcome and would need a separate discussion in order to be deleted. Sandstein 13:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom hearts 3 (video game)[edit]

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

No sources, not even created yet, only hearsay and rumour. Time to write an article on this if and when it (a) is published and (b) receives significant coverage in reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL violation. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The name hasn't even been registered yet. Jørdan 03:52, 9 January 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) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't notable, has no sources, future game, etc. When it does become notable, it will be at Kingdom Hearts III, unless a real name is given. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. We can't just assume the game it's going to be called Kingdom Hearts III (or 3 for that matter). Insignificant coverage to merit more than a mention in the series article, which it has. --Teancum (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article can be made good. Similar to how Chrono Break is an article on a trademark, and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword was once about an artwork and a few elements, Kingdom Hearts III's article can exist as long as reaction and coverage can be shown (and there has been significant amounts of it). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't much that can be said that isn't said in the short paragraph in Kingdom Hearts#Future titles. This is also the wrong name for the title. If somebody wants to find "reaction and coverage", then that would be awesome. But the thing is, this is the wrong title, has no good content in it, thus it should be deleted. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the concerns by Teancum and JamesBWatson. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge if needed to Kingdom Hearts series where there is some material on this already per WP:PRESERVE. Hobit (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kingdom Hearts, as that page has at least sourced material about the title, while this only has speculations.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created an article at Kingdom Hearts III, so redirect to there. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:06, 16 January 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. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Couteau[edit]

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

Dubious notability, links to "famous" redlinked writers and critics; reeks of autobiography (edits by User:RobCouteau and an SPA who may also be Couteau); reads like a press handout by the subject's agent Orange Mike | Talk 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article seems to be solely for self promotion and is also being used to add external links to RC's reviews of novels and writers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hagiographic spamfest masquerading as an article, dubious notability. ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I think that the artist may meet the notability criteria the creation of the article is dubious at best. For one the article has multiple issues. 2nd, the article was created by an account that appears to be a sock of the artist. 3rd, the majority of the edits have been done by an account that appears to be the artist. --Kumioko (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the individual to be a writer of import and have therefore rewritten the article. It is now more objective. RDHolland (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: RDHolland's rewrite solves the problems present at nomination and proves notability. Nyttend (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - strongly disagree - RDHolland's rewrite does not provide a smidgen of evidence that Couteau is notable; he/she merely lists articles Couteau has written, mostly for the same minor publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And also adds references coving Couteau; as far as I can see, RDHolland didn't do anything to the former "Collected works" section except formatting bits that were already there and renaming the section. Nyttend (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be the case of a guy who self-published all of his "books," then came here to Wikipedia to write an article about himself on that basis. Since these are things that any human being with a checkbook and a computer can do, there's no notability at all here. Completely fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, WP:BK, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:SPA, and no doubt several more policies and guidelines we could dig up. Qworty (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject appears of minor independent note. Off2riorob (talk) 02:50, 14 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Itself (Film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, the article was created by the film's director. Corvus cornix_talk 02:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:FILM, and I couldn't find any sources at all to determine notability for it. It has also not received any major reviews or awards that I could find. --Slon02 (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there are real concerns with COI, sending a film to AFD only TWO minutes after article creation seems a bit of a rush. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not when there are no claims of notability as well as no reliable sources which prove the notability of the film. Corvus cornix_talk 05:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the assertion that the film was a documentary of a notable event and that it is used at universities ARE both valid claims toward notability. In such cases, tagging for cleanup and sources could have been a far friendlier way to get results, specially as articles from newcomers rarely spring into mainspace in an ideal condition. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: In beginning to address[1] the newcomer's total lack of understanding of proper format for film articles, I see that there is an assertion that the film may have a notability through WP:NF#General principles #5. This will take further research. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can find no reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 05:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just takes a different gogle-foo than you were using, I suppose. For instance, I had no problem quickly finding an article about the film in the San Francisco Chronicle which spoke at length about the documentary, the filmmaker, and the documentary subject itself... and the article was excerpted at Goliath And there was an admittedly brief blurb in the August 2008 Jewish Journal announcing an opportunity to see a screening.[2] And there was an article in Mercury News telling of how out of the 50 or 60 documentaries screened at the Fairfax Documentary Film Festival, the film received top billing. And I also found sources showing its availability at some universities, such as University of Hawaaii This took maybe 2 minutes. Wanna bet there are more? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And which of those sources makes it notable as per WP:FILM? Corvus cornix_talk 07:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Time for school? WP:FILM is the project. WP:NF are the notability criteria. Being discussed in reliable sources and being used in universities meets two of the criteria we consider per WP:Notability (films). And my response was because you claimed that you could not find any reliable sources. In two minutes I found that such sources exist, using perhaps a different google-foo than did you. Again, wanna bet there are more? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be a dick. Let's have a reasoned discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 21:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take general elucidation as if it were a personal affront. I was being reasonable in politely remarking that both you and User:Slon02 had been pointing to the Project Film page rather than the page containing the applicable notability criteria. And toward reasoned discussion: After you succintly stated you could find no reliable sources, I indicated what sources I was able to find in just a couple minutes, and then explained what applicable criteria might be seen to apply and how. That I found what you stated you could not does not make me a dick.. nor does my answering your questions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
At ease dear gentlemen. Hold your emotions for now and please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article certainly needs some work, especially with secondary references and COI. Nevertheless, I find that it meets the notability guidelines for films, per Schmidt's findings, and it shouldn't be deleted at this time. Epass (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Schmidt's findings. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:29, 8 January 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 SNOW close. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 20:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewitness identification[edit]

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

I've nominated the article for deletion. The page is a serious breech of NPOV policies and is simply an anti-eyewitness rant. I would like to improve it but I believe the article is too biased to salvage. We would be better off rewriting it from scratch. --Armanalp (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The question here is whether the topic is notable. Hundreds of scholarly books and thousands of scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals about eyewitness testimony amply demonstrate that the subject has received "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Rather than "delete and restart from scratch," try editing out anything which violates WP:NPOV or which has undue weight. This does not mean that the position that "eyewitness testimony is nearly always right" should receive equal space. The information in the article is generally in accord with a vast number of published academic studies of the past 30 years or longer, showing that eyewitness testimony is often wrong, and that witnesses can be adamant in their incorrect identification of an accused person. Edison (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Keep an article on an important, albeit broad, topic. The current article isn't much good but it does provide valuable, well sourced information about eyewitnesses providing incorrect evidence. This is a very well documented field that would be easy to source, and so are the other areas that hsould be covered by this article but aren't.--Patton123 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard to disagree with the nominator, when the leadoff sentence of this article is (and has been for years) "Eyewitness identification evidence is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. Of the more than 200 people exonerated by way of DNA evidence in the US, over 75% were wrongfully convicted on the basis of erroneous eyewitness identification evidence." Concluding the former from the latter is ridiculous. I imagine that people will try to make this a better article, but it's essentially a matter of rewriting it beyond recognition. I think that the author's soapbox was really about mistaken eyewitness identification, which redirects to mistaken identity. As Edison and Patton point out, there is some good objective information in here that could be incorporated into an article about the use of eyewitness testimony in criminal and civil trials. Mandsford 22:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep I can't understand why this was nominated in the first place. The article is extremely well referenced, and the consensus of research is that eyewitness identification evidence is a leading cause of wrongful conviction (whether is it the number one cause I don't know). It therefore does not violate WP:NPOV, and as it is clearly notable there are no grounds for deletion. May I suggest you withdraw the nomination so as not to waste people's time? Francis Bond (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone may make a friendly or unfriendly suggestion, but if I were Armanalp, I would ignore that particular comment. Mandsford 03:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this were indeed and article about mistaken eyewitness identification or something, some major NPOV editing could bring it in line. The problem is that the article doesn't even give a definition for eyewitness identification, immediately labeling it as a horrible thing. Some of the information here, particularly on lineup methods, could indeed be incorporated in an existing (mistaken identity) or new article. Problem is, as it stands, it is simply an attack page. We should delete it and merge the relevant information elsewhere. --Armanalp (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is this a serious nomination?.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The solution to the problems the nominator identified is tagging and balancing and cleanup. THF (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've rewritten the first paragraph of the article to start removing the POV problems. There's a long way to go. The author provided some decent links, and it is difficult to write about studies showing unreliability of this type of evidence without appearing to push an agenda. For those who have urged that the article can be improved, this is an important topic and this can be a top rate article. Some will look at the first couple of paragraphs and think that I've not done much better. Criminal law is not my specialty. I think there's enough actual interest in improvement, as opposed to the "keep-and-let-someone-else-fix-it" approach. To User:Armanalp, who has taken some criticism for nominating this in the first place, I say thank you for bringing this to our attention, and I hope you'll help by taking out some of the worst of the POV statements. Mandsford 14:51, 10 January 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. Redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 13:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Munck[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still does not meet the standard notability guidelines to sustain a Wikipedia page. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:47 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge to his brother's page and have the name as a redirect. The kid is six and has 26,000 page views, fans must be interested. Jørdan 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should have been a CSD:G4 speedy as an attempt to recreate content that was deleted per a deletion discussion... and now that it's grown for a few weeks, it's more like its predecessor that ever. Ethan has no more coverage than he did in November.[3] And now that 6 weeks have passed, young Ethan's career still fails WP:ENT and his coverage still fails WP:GNG. As for a redirect to his brother... fine... as Ethan is already mentioned in his brother's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny because the same author of the original page recreated it, not an anonymous account like majority of re-creations. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:55 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete, fails notability guidelines, and at his age, the subject has plenty of time to become notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:10, 16 January 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. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enfauser[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of 217.235.37.238. Rationale from talk page is There are no reliable sources provided. I had a look and can find only forums/blogs and a lot of sales. Until someone can show a reliable source I'm not convinced this is not a hoax. If a source is found the article could be merged into Lee-Enfield Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Although perhaps not 100% RS's, here here and here are enough to establish not a hoax. Print sources will be needed for proper citations though, likely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These are 0% RS. You are just showing what I said in the nomination: forums/blogs. 217.235.37.238 (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never said they were RS's. I just said they disprove that the weapon is a hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Books shows only false positives in French using the words "en Fauser". The sources provided by Bushranger are clearly not reliable. Only 217 unique hits on Google, and even some of those are false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources are excitable web forums. There are pictures on a web auction site, but again this is not reliable. The sourcing just isn't good enough to verify that these actually exist and aren't just an urban legend and/or gullible collectors being taken advantage of. Fences&Windows 00:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Turkey" chapter of Robert W. D. Ball's Mauser Military Rifles of the World has lots of information about various rifles, the Turkish Army's contract with Mauser, and its conversion and standardization programme of the 1930s. There's zero mention of an "Enfauser". It does (in the "Belgium" chapter on page 37) talk about the British capturing Turkish M1890 rifles at Gallipoli and the British converting them to the Belgian M1889 design. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 12 January 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) 01:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jscriptz[edit]

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

Failure to meet WP:MUSICBIO as references that actually mention the subject appear to be blogs or at best minor coverage in local newspaper. The creating author previously wrote "Hello, me and my PR team were currently working on a page for our artist, 'Jscriptz'", indicating this is is a promotional piece. I42 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, Im tired, ive been trying to work on this all night, you can delete if you desire, but as i stated there are THOUSANDS of other artist with less information as jscriptz. I demand that all other artist with less references also be removed, forced to change, or deleted instantly as well, because as an American company, by applying rules and being strick on a select, and letting others slide, is called discrimination, this can easily result into a law suit. So as I said, if its bothering you, your company, this bad, when there are thousands of other acts out here with so much as just a sentence on there page go right ahead, do so, but enforce on all as well.

1: Mac Miller 2: Lil Flip 3: Chip tha Ripper

and im not going to sit here, and continue to waste my time, going through all of the people that supposedly got looked over or forgotten. Thank you, have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondathewiseone (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other articles are irrelevant to this discussion. Sources fail to verify notability for this artist; if and when he does become notable, there could be an article about him but notability has to be there first. --bonadea contributions talk 08:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only passing mention in a local newspaper. Insufficient to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Favonian (talk) 22:59, 14 January 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. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Argentina earthquake[edit]

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

Non-notable earthquake. Was almost not felt in Santiago del Estero, as it occurred at a huge depth and in a desertical area with almost no inhabitants. No lasting significance. Diego Grez (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While 7.0 is a high magnitude, it was more than 350 miles below the surface. Unfortunately, there is not yet an article called Earthquakes in Argentina where news nuggets like this can be placed. We do have a Category:Earthquakes in Argentina. In 2010, great strides were made toward making encyclopedic articles about earthquakes in a particular nation or along a particular fault line, and getting away from the old habit of unrelated news items. Though someone suggested a "rule of 7", the true measure of notability is described in WP:EVENT. Mandsford 18:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No guts, no glory. Peter.C • talk 01:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 9 January 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 as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duke Elliott James Andrew of Russia[edit]

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

Sources don't check out. Google search finds nothing. Maybe a hoax. See also Andrew Vladimirovich Belegsh, Grand Duke of Russia created by same author. First Light (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3, per nom and reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Vladimirovich Belegsh, Grand Duke of Russia. I42 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. Looks like there are quite a few of these [4] today. Mandsford 18:48, 8 January 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 as hoax. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Vladimirovich Belegsh, Grand Duke of Russia[edit]

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

None of the many sources check out. A google search finds nothing. Maybe a hoax? Also see Grand Duke Elliott James Andrew of Russia created by the same editor. First Light (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3, per nom. The article claims many titles and royal connections, but zero Google results indicates a hoax indeed. None of the many references appear to have anything to do with the subject, either. I42 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX. After reading that Andrew "is a great-great-great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria", I conclude that he's either had surgery, or that this is a rewrite of Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia. Mandsford 18:46, 8 January 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. Consensus that the article does not meet the notability guideline due to a lack of significan coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Logic[edit]

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

New York-based organisation. You have to read several paragraphs before you even get an hint of what it does but it seems to be mapping utility cables and pipes. Spammy in tone. The author, Bbcesq (talk · contribs) is Bruce Cahan one of the founders. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. In this case, the policy is wrong because it prevents founders of not-for-profit organizations from "kick starting" their Wikipedia entries as authors. The policy should allow this, demanding that the article clearly make clear the source is the founder. Then, let the community decide how to handle. -- Cary Rosenzweig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cary9944 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the @Cary9944 - this article should NOT be deleted. It seems natural that the founders of a small not-for-profit will be the ones to start that organization's entry in Wikipedia, as they have the best knowledge base from which to write. The community can then participate, as with any other wiki entry, but there needs to a starting point. As for Gene93k's comments that this is "spammy in tone" and that the organization has "no evidence of notability", I respectfully disagree. The page is not selling anything or requesting any donations, so I'm not sure how it qualifies as spam. And notability? Urban Logic's founders are working to make the world a better place in numerous ways, and provided critical support to first responders in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. If that doesn't qualify as notable, I'd say about half of wikipedia's pages should be deleted for non-notability! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.97.123 (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks signficant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 2011-01-11 21:36:21
76.16.97.123 and Cary9944 seem to be making a cogent case for deletion without any further help. Apparently this organization is undocumented by anyone other than its founders, who are writing more such documentation firsthand into Wikipedia, in contravention of our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. The usual misconstruction and distortion of notability, along with other-bad-writers-exist-so-we-should-be-allowed-to-write-unencyclopaedically-too, is then being argued to defend the indefensible and an article about something that the world outwith the subject's founders simply hasn't noted. A quick search for sources confirms their argument. So, too, does checking some of the non-press-release sources pointed to via external links in the article, which turn out not to mention this subject at all. As far as I can tell 76.16.97.123 is entirely right, and no-one independent of this subject knows about it, let alone has written that knowledge down and published it. Which of course excludes it from a systematization of verifiable, already published by reliable and independent people, general human knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't a founder make a submission and then have the community support or refute the what is written? Good Bank is a dawn good idea! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.77.131.216 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per UncleG, there's no evidence of notabilty. 184.77.131.216, with respect, that's essentially what is happening here. Anyone can edit here, but they need to follow policy. WP isn't here to act as a venue for promotion of an organization, no matter how notable it is. Please take a gander at the links UncleG posted above, esp. Wikipedia:Verifiability, and feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:59, 16 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Crisis of London Metropolitan University[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic; copy and paste duplication of material at London Metropolitan University. Chrisieboy (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For reasons stated by the nominator. Any further developments can be included in the relevant London Metropolitan University section. Jørdan 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic content fork from London Metropolitan University. Content is appropriately covered in the other article. --Orlady (talk) 04:35, 15 January 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 Deleted by User:Starblind under WP:CSD#G3 Blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Jaime has a Digimon[edit]

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

No sources can be find. Most likely a hoax but article creator will not allow the ((db-hoax)) to stay on the article for other editors. BOVINEBOY2008 15:01, 8 January 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) 01:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Redfern[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Not any notice outside of the WP:FRINGE community, thus we cannot write an article about him. jps (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writer with no notices to speak of. Not notable even if all claims in article are true. EEng (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep The nom's statement is not entirely true. At least one of his books was reviewed by the New York Times: [5], and according to a ProQuest search, Robert Sheaffer reviewed Contactees: A History of Alien-Human Interaction for Skeptical Inquirer ("History and High-Strangeness Speculation". May/June 2010. Vol 34, Issue 3. pg. 59). On top of that, there was some talk about adapting Three Men Seeking Monsters into a movie: [6] Zagalejo^^^ 05:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 1 January 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) 14:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Very well known, not only in his field but also in the 'mainstream media'. I've added extra sources and facts to establish notability. All the sources meet WP:RS and can be used for WP:V. There are about 50 more sources with a similar depth of coverage available but I don't have time to rewrite the whole thing to incorporate them all right now. If nothing else, he meets WP:AUTHOR as many of his books have been best-sellers which have garnered lots of mainstream press coverage. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the extra sources, this now seems to meet the guidelines for inclusion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of his work aside, the publishing deals + the movie deals = notability. Definite keep. DS (talk) 18:57, 10 January 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 in favor of a redirect NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Men (season 1)[edit]

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

This page is basically a duplicate of the episode list. I've never seen the show, and it may be notable enough for individual season pages, but this page is essentially nothing more than the main episode listing. Kevinbrogers (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been solved by just redirecting to season 1 in the episode list, as it has no independent content. That way, it can still be expanded if someone wants to turn it into a valid season article (e.g., Lost (season 1)). postdlf (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I just redirect it now, or let the AfD run its course? Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just redirect it and withdraw the AFD. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not really sure what all I have to do to withdraw it... sorry. Just blank this page? I don't want to mess anything up doing this. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and close the AFD, feel free to go with the redirect whenever you like. If you ever want to close one in the future, the info on how to do it is at WP:DELPRO. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that, the information is linked on WP:DELPRO, my bad. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:08, 8 January 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. Davewild (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vangelis Petsalis[edit]

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

No evidence that this composer meets the criteria for inclusion as a musician, or a general biography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This composer is a well known contemporary classical musician.See for example:

http://www.eem.org.gr/members_detail.asp?id=121&property=biografy

http://www.eem.org.gr/members_detail_g.asp?id=121&property=biografy

http://www.classicaldiscoveries.org/playlist20030528.html

http://www.mygreek.fm/event/view/by-id/442/event/Concert-of-classical-music-with-Vangelis-Petsalis

http://www.costopoulosfoundation.org/page/default.asp?la=2&id=51

http://www.musicweb-international.com/Balkan_discography/ECE_Balkan_Symphonies1.htm

http://www.violinconcerto.de/database.html?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=1887&sobi2Id=13841

http://musiqueclassique.forumpro.fr/t1678-vangelis-petsalis

http://www.hfc-sofia.com/wmt/webpages/index.php?lid=2&pid=61&apprec=10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vag2 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of those links show any significant coverage as required by WP:BIO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC

I thought that at least the Princeton University of USA -one of the best in the world-that has dedicated a special 4 hours programm upon Vangelis Petsalis`s work ( http://www.classicaldiscoveries.org/playlist20030528.html) would be "significant coverage",if the other links are not- for wikipedia -trustful.I dont understand what wikipedia needs more and I am sorry if I have created an article upon this contemporary musician that doesnt fit in a supposedly upto date encyclopaedia

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the links, the first reference (in the Greek language), does have quite a lot of information about his career. Don't quite know how to measure the notability of a composer but a composer who has conducted orchestras outside of his home country and has been given time by media outside of his home country must be notable enough. I tidied up the article a bit. Needs more work doing to it though. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a presumption of notability without actual evidence of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Nipsonanomhata,it is much better the article now in this way.Vangelis Petsalis is not a conductor.He is a composer whose works are played by other conductors and Orchestras( Alkis Panayotopoulos,Adrian Sunshine,Alexandros Myrat,Miltos Logiadis are some of the conductors I know and such Orchestras as National Bulgarian Radio & Television Orchestra,Camerata Orchestra of the Megaron Hall Athens,Greek National Radfio & Television Orchestras ,Sofia Philharmonic Orchestra et.al that are from Greece and out of Greece).The first link you are referred to is the official page for him at the Greek Composers Union-EEM( Hellenic Composers Union) http://www.violinconcerto.de/database.html?sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=1887&sobi2Id=13841 http://www.eem.org.gr/members_detail.asp?id=121&property=biografy http://www.recordsinternational.com/archive/RICatalogJuly98.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vag2 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added some more references and the following basic requirement has been met: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known composer as attested by multiple reliable, independent sources including a grant by the Costopoulos Foundation. His chosen field of music is rather obscure as opposed to say rap or hip hop music and being in Southern Europe the sources are not as easily found as if he lived in the English-speaking world. There is an inherent cultural bias in evaluating the reliability of non-North American/English-speaking sources but despite that these sources are reliable enough to establish notability. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:16, 14 January 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) 01:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Airlines Flight 1754[edit]

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

Non-notable hijacking attempt. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. No evidence that this event will have any lasting effects. Since the hijacker's claim of having a bomb proved false, it is not likely that any long term changes in security policy will derive from this event. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Divert this one to Turkish Airlines#Incidents and accidents, where it can be mentioned. No redirect, since its unlikely that anyone would ever look for this by flight number anyway, and articles with the airline and flight number in the title-- such as Turkish Airlines Flight 981-- shouldn't be hidden in a plethora of other THY Flight # articles. Mandsford 22:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Also a redirect is not necessary. The incident is already listed on the Turkish Airlines page.William 23:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect per nominator and Mandsford. No evidence that there is enough information to sustain a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of aircraft hijackings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be redirected, but I'm glad you pointed out that list-- I've gone ahead an added this one to it, yay, I got to create a new section for the 2010s. [7]. Mandsford 16:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Admrboltz (talk) 18:44, 10 January 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 as hoaxes. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prima Donna (Philippine TV Series)[edit]

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

Hoax "upcoming" television show with no valid references. The only external link for this article is for a different show, LaLola (Philippine TV series). WayKurat (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —WayKurat (talk) 14:01, 8 January 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. Davewild (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stupp[edit]

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

Non notable school project Teapotgeorge^Talk 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. We still don't have a speedy criterion that satisfies WP:MADEUP??? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find nothing at all about this anywhere except Wikipedia. If it exists it is certainly not notable. Also, "the whole project should be available for under £100 and should be able to be built" (my emphasis) suggests that it doesn't even exist (yet). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 9 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of John Mellencamp[edit]

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

No sources found besides a terse Allmusic review. Album did not chart or earn RIAA certification. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - My opinion is that per precedent in the Albums Project, notice by AllMusic grants sufficient notability for an album, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project in which the discographies for a notable artist should be complete. It's true that these "Masters" collections aren't much to get excited about though. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - One reference, and it is a good reference, is unfortunately enough to keep, but it's not like it's an unknown band trying to get free advertising. Passionless (talk) 15:21, 6 January 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, Tone 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an original work, which would be notable . I think the standards of notability for a mere repackaging would be higher than a mention at allmusic or any other website, as would be for any other class of material. The review in allmusic just amounts to a track listing--perhaps because there is nothing to review--the list of songs tells everything necessary or possible to be said. If NOTDIRECTORY has a meaning, it applies to such catalog information. DGG ( talk ) 15:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-charting non-notable compilation. Allmusic entry consist of a tracklist and little else. JacksOrion (talk) 07:11, 16 January 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. Davewild (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England Cricket Batting Stats[edit]

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

Not needed. CricInfo is a place to correlate stats, and the statistics of each player are covered in far more depth on their individual pages, and we already have easily navigable squad lists on the England national cricket team pages to assist this. Bit of a odd selection of less than half of the main statistics available. Will get easily lost and go out of date very quickly, unnecessary content. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cannot see the point of trying to maintain current player stats here as they change so frequently. I think it breaches WP:NOT#STATS too as this is not what we are about: i.e., there is no narrative. Adds no value to cricket project. It looks like post-Ashes euphoria (so we know he's not an Aussie, anyway) that will quickly fade. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 11:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't what WP:STATS is about either; it's about the actual statistics of Wikipedia (btw, I'm neutral here). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I meant WP:NOT#STATS. Have amended previous entry. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete? Maybe I didn't make myself clear but this is the squad from 2010 onwards if anyone retires I will not remove them. Besides it gives people an easier way to check who has most career runs, centuries, wickets etc. Say if Morgan played the test against India I would include him and keep Collingwood if you know what I mean. Migitgem2009 (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Jack I started this before/after the first test -_-. So it's not post ashes euphoria. I was going to do one for every test coutry but it would have taken me too long so I just did my own country.

Comment. I think it needs narrative to justify its being kept. Can you do anything with it in that regard? BTW, I'm not sure if we will bring Morgan in. I think we'll move Bell and Prior up the order to restore Broad when fit so as to play 5 bowlers. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What would suggest I put for narrative? And I agree with Broad coming in I was just using Morgan as an example as he is not on my page but Broad is. Migitgem2009 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is why do we need this page in particular? CricInfo can provide such information, and all the player's individual pages have their up-to-date stats. Why collate this particular team from this particular time onwards? The information already exists and to collect it under such particular criteria seems a bit unnecessary. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think we need this. If it is a selection of stats about the current squad, a) it will get out of date, we have a tough enough job maintaining the stats in the biography articles, but b) we have information on the current squad at the main team page England cricket team#Current squad so if it was decided that a snapshot view of their stats was merited that would seem the logical place for it. If it is for all players, not just the current squad, it should be for all players, not those post-2010 as the creator was suggesting [by advocating adding new players, but not removing retired ones]. In that case, the information plus more is already available at List of England Test cricketers.—User:MDCollins (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think the list is needed. We already have List of England Test cricket records for comprehensive coverage on England Test batting records. To have a list of solely players from 2010 onwards seems bizarre anyway. The stats which I tend to update at the end of every international and after every 5 domestic matches are on the players pages. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:44, 10 January 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. Davewild (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Media[edit]

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

Is this video producer notable? Nothing I see indicates that it is. Delete unless notability established during the discussion. --Nlu (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 1 January 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, Davewild (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: little-to-no third party coverage of this "Mighty Media". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:45, 15 January 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 15:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Ann Grau[edit]

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

BLP remains unsourced after 11 months. BlackCab (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found references very easily, which I have added to the article. Very notable (e.g. pulitzer prize) and now has some references. Davewild (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pulitzer prize Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; significant coverage in reliable sources + Pulitzer prize winner.--Beloved Freak 14:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 14:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:BIO as a result of the coverage and Pulitzer. Hut 8.5 16:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Pulitzer win makes her clearly notable and she's in several other Wikis.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:17, 12 January 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tokugawa Munefusa[edit]

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

Long-term unreferenced biography of a living person. No reliable sources found. Fails the notability guidelines for authors. There's more detail at ja.wikipedia but no sources. Notability seems to be based on status as head of clan but I doubt that this meets the general notability guidelines. Plad2 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 08:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Plad2 (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Library of Congress authority file and OCLC identity page. --Tenmei (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw nomination and change to Keep now that the article has been expanded and sourced, thanks to Tenmei.--Plad2 (talk) 08:39, 9 January 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. Davewild (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video index of the most influential rock music[edit]

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

Apart from the problems with the article title (what is a video index?), "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files Wikipedia articles are not: mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" see WP:LINKFARM SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mainly because all this seems to be based on the creator's own opinion. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, per User:Erpert, and primarily because it's nothing more than a compilation of LINKVIOs. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. It is a miscellaneous list of songs with accompanying video list. It would be better if placed on a blog or something, but definitely not as a wikipedia article. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's not a bad idea to link individual articles about songs to a location where they can be heard (or seen and heard), there is a problem with people making their own judgments about which songs qualify to be on a list of "the most influential rock music". Mandsford 22:12, 8 January 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. Courcelles 07:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Veith[edit]

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

Obscure creationist. No third party sourcing. No indication that topic meets WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Google News/Books reveals almost no reliable coverage on this Walter Veith. Related article also up for AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Amazing Discoveries. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. no third party sources. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No 3d party sources I can find. EEng (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the sources may be ok for documenting non-controversial facts about the subject, they are primary (one is the subject's own web site, another an organization of questionable notability that the subject was involved in founding) and therefore cannot be used to justify the notability of the subject. So, there is no evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of this article recounts his legitimate scientific work. However, WoS shows an h-index of only 8 and WorldCat shows holdings of his books as: "Diet and Health" at 166; "Genesis Conflict" at 9; and "Truth Matters" at 4. These results do not suggest sufficient impact by or current standards. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 03:20, 13 January 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. Davewild (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Discoveries[edit]

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

Obscure Christian apologetics ministry. No third party sourcing. No indication that topic meets WP:ORG. Due to generic name, Google News/Books turns up masses of irrelevant hits, but nothing apparently on this topic. Related article also up for AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Walter Veith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The ministry's satellite footprint makes it notable due to the wide exposure. After seeing that channel I came to wiki to read up on the organization. It looks like the article is being improved with references. Sdenny123 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: please state which notability criteria having a high potential viewership (which may well not translate to a high actual viewership) is relevant to. None of the references to date are third-party. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources appear to be primary; there is no evidence of passing WP:WEB or WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Pinkadelica ^♣ 05:06, 12 January 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. Davewild (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carries On/Mexico[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a minor album that never received any semblance of wide printing. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for outright lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication that this meets WP:NMUSIC. No apparent coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:47, 15 January 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. Davewild (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Punch Bowl[edit]

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

Non-notable college comedy magazine. Only claim to notability is a "minor controversy," which is only referenced by a blog, the college newspaper, and by WP:SELFREF. --GrapedApe (talk) 05:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think we should be cautious about deleting a magazine that has been published for more than 100 years. The Ezra Pound reference is impressive. The article itself is not great and no doubt can be improved but only 3 of 7 sources are self published. I have to admit that the notability guidelines for magazines are not too clear. There's little at WP:BK. But a quick Google News search found several New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer articles about the magazine. And Google Books shows many, many quotes. I also noticed that there are about 30 college humor magazines on WP. If this one is deleted, to be consistent we'd probably have to delete most of the others as well. Logical Cowboy (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That last sentence is a common misconception and a complete fallacy. It we are to be consistent, we consistently apply our criteria, which are to keep articles on the thoroughly documented and known, and delete articles on the undocumented and unknown. That knowledge is lumpy, uneven, and unfair is not an encyclopaedia's problem to alter. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Ironic timing for the nomination, same week as the Orange Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, the Cotton Bowl and the obscure ones like the "Compass Bowl" and the "Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl". Good news, it's not another NCAA football game, it's a college humor magazine. I think that it's likely to meet our standards for notability. While it's not as famous as the Harvard Lampoon, it's been published by students at an Ivy League school for over a century. Mandsford 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I fixed a couple of dead links in the article, added a source, and corrected the founding date to 1899. As Logical Cowboy observes, there are many hits in Google News, including the New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer. Some of these GNews hits are for extremely lame jokes from the Punch Bowl that were reprinted in other papers, but there is no accounting for taste. There are enough sources to improve the article as soon as anyone has time. The flurry over their 2008 'diversity' issue may have attracted some wider news coverage and if so, is interesting enough to deserve expansion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 13 January 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. Davewild (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Albert[edit]

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

Actor with no major roles or significant recurring roles. Very weak sourcing provided, unable to improve. SummerPhD (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has not achieved notability to date. Lack of sources indicates a lack of importance. --Stormbay (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. His short career can be verified, but needs growth and coverage. A mention in a NYT article when he was 17 does share that he spent 6 years at the Stagedoor Manor theater camp in the Catskills,[8] but nothing else. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as included under "Entertainers" WP:BIO he has mutiple roles in notable tv series is ICarly not notable? (LARGENOTESSSS (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

- Comment - Yes, iCarly is notable, but WP:ENT calls for "significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows". Albert's "guest appearance" in one episode apparently isn't significant enough to merit mention in iCarly. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, I had considered that myself in my research. The one-of appearances, such as in iCarly and in 10 Things I Hate About You, could have been helpful if there more of them. The recurring role in I'm In The Band is much more convincing of a significant role... but only in the one notable series. When the film Detention is released later this year, and if shown notable, and if the actor's role is shown as significant, a recreation of an expanded and better sourced article would be worth consideration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NACTOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:49, 15 January 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 - no evidence at all. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony bloyed[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show. Nolelover^{It's football season!} 04:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Emperor's New School. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzco Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional school. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 03:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no out-of-universe notability, and a redirect would just be undone ad nauseam by the fanboys. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Emperor's New School and protect redirect. Anything that needs to be said about the fictional school can be said in the article about the television series where it appears. The article for The Emperor's New School isn't excessively long anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 05:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect - no evidence of independent notability. --EEMIV (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has been redirected by an IP already. We could revert until this discussion is closed, but it does seem that this is already the consensus view. Shall we keep it? — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 03:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Protected redirect: repeated IP recreations from redirect of this article on a non-notable fictional school. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:54, 15 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Asian people[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This unsourced list is in violation of WP:BLP. I would remove all unsourced entries, but that would simply leave an empty list. I think that deletion is the best option until someone has the time to rewrite a properly sourced list. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Keep: A glance at the linked biographies show that the listed people are indeed of British-Asian origin. If the problem is of sourcing, that isn't too hard to fix. --Ragib (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've wavered on several occasions about whether it's a good idea to pigeonhole people by ethnicity on Wikipedia, and I can understand and sympathise with the reasons for this nomination. But I'm not sure I agree with it. It looks like a list version of Category:British people of South Asian descent to me, which would be allowed per WP:CLN. I don't think the full stricture of BLP policy applies because the most rigorous version of BLP is about protecting living people from contentious information about them. In most cases, to call someone "British Asian" is neither contentious nor negative, but simply factual. I don't believe most reasonable people would object to calling, say, Sanjeev Bhaskar or Anita Rani "British Asians". I think the reasons leading to this nomination are fixable, and I think AfD is not for cleanup.—S Marshall T/C 15:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm of a similarly wavering opinion on classifying people according to ethnicity. However, this nomination is more about the lack of sources than the classification itself. I think Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality needs to be considered here. Classifying people without sources is the problem in this case. The lists have been tagged as unsourced for some time but nothing has been done to address this. The alternative would be to remove all unsourced entries, but since both lists are completely unsourced, that would leave us with two blank articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marshall, you say that "I don't think the full stricture of BLP policy applies because the most rigorous version of BLP is about protecting living people from contentious information about them". I agree that this might be true of many people on these lists, but how about Michael Fassbender's inclusion at List of British people with German ancestry? His mother was born in Northern Ireland but sources describe him as Irish, and I think in that context it's a violation of BLP to include him on a list of British people. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone wondered why I've only nominated these two articles, it's because they had previously been up for deletion. I have also proposed that the following be deleted using WP:PROD:

Together, these are all of the completely unsourced lists from Category:Lists of British people by origin. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking, from your remarks, that if I sourced one or two of these, the whole basis of the nomination would be invalidated?—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem then, I sourced ~~one~~ some.—S Marshall T/C 17:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Isn't this sort of thing better handled by categories? Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But by that logic, *all* list pages can be replaced by categories ... do you make that claim for all such articles? (including featured lists?) --Ragib (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a guideline about this, which is at WP:CLN. Basically, it says that the fact that we have categories doesn't mean we shouldn't have lists, even for the same thing.—S Marshall T/C 02:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what's next, a list of Chinese European people?SharedPlanetType (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why not, if such a group exists that identifies itself as Chinese Europeans? There is already a List of Chinese Americans. --Ragib (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not because most of the time, people included in such a list do not identify themselves as "Chinese European" Bulldog123 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kind of stupid, but does not seem to violate any WP policies, including BLP.Borock (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion on the BLP noticeboard seems to be that these type of lists are a BLP issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with S Marshall's comment above. Ethnicity (in most cases, at least) should not be viewed as the kind of negative information that BLP was created to deal with. Its original concern was to ensure proper sourcing, and to remove unsourced negative statements, but it seems to be turning into some kind of bureaucratic monster that has leaked into many other areas of content determination as well. It's too often used as a bludgeon in deletion discussions that have nothing to do with sourcing an article statement or negative information. There are a lot of people who simply don't like these kinds of lists regardless of how well sourced they are.
The list is certainly verifiable. It does not (and should not) include anyone who does not already have an article. First step, anyone whose article does not support their inclusion in this list should be removed from this list. Second step, the sources used in those articles to support their status as British Asians should be migrated into this list. I don't agree with the urgent need to delete this when it is fixable, regardless of what has been said on the BLP noticeboard (just another forum). AFDs are useful for testing the local consensuses that develop in such niches against a wider community, so we can see how a broader community really wants to apply policies and guidelines and how to test their consequences. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. No validation for why any of this information is encyclopedically notable. For 90%+ of the list's entries, this is pure WP:TRIVIA. If anyone wants to make a relevant list of peoples... there's no reason it can't be included in something like British Germans on a small-scale, case-by-case basis, explaining why such a classification is notable to the person. Bulldog123 22:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per comments by Postdlf.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the people are notable, a list of them buy any reasonable characteristic that has any relevance to their notability is appropriate DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 14 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern Buddhism[edit]

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

Delete. Article is entirely composed of original research. Lead has evolved from "Postmodern Buddhism can be defined as ..." to "Postmodern Buddhism is associated with a syncretic and eclectic approach ...". Requests for a source which provides a formal definition have been ignored. Requests to verify that sources are about "Postmodern Buddhism" rather than Postmodern interpretations of Buddhism have been ignored. None of the string of sources on the final sentence even contain the word "Postmodern". This is complete synthesis. Yworo (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability of topic not at all established. One of the main claims is that "postmodern" Buddhists get along with other religions. This has been an aspect of Buddhism all along. Wolfview (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've also nominated Postmodern religion.Wolfview (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - postmodern religion, postmodern Christianity and now postmodern Buddhism have all been simultaneously nominated for deletion.

You can't just exclude religion from the subject of postmodernism.

The convention with postmodernism is postmodern art, postmodern architecture, postmodern psychology postmodern music and so on. This article follows that connection and links to the larger article, postmodern religion. This can be a tough subject to write about and I am trying to do it in a way that is clear and easy to understand for the reader.

Postmodern Wicca was nominated for deletion, so I changed the title to Postmodern Neopaganism(because the Wicca community did not like the Wicca title) which was then merged to postmodern religion. Now postmodern religion, postmodern Christianity, Postmodern Buddhism are all being simultaneously nominated as articles for deletion. The references for postmodern Buddhism seem good enough for the article to stay and there is nothing wrong with a short article.

Park, Jin Y (2008) Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayan and the possibility of postmodern ethics - Lexington Books
^ Swatos and Kivisto (1998) Encylopedia of religion and society - Sage Publications - page 68
^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/postmodernism.shtml
^ "Chinese Cultural Studies: The Spirits of Chinese Religion". Academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ Windows on Asia - Chinese Religions
^ "Religions and Beliefs in China". Travelchinaguide.com. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ "SACU Religion in China". Sacu.org. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ "Index-China Chinese Philosophies and religions". Index-china.com. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ "Buddhism in China". AskAsia. Retrieved 2010-08-25.
^ "Buddhism And Its Spread Along The Silk Road". Globaled.org. Retrieved 2010-08-25.

Kary247 (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe use more 'long tail keywords' and be a bit lateral like - 'postmodern buddhism defining'

example 1 example 2 example 3 example 4 example 5

(maybe be a bit more lateral when searching for sources and use more long tail keywords etc.)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kary247 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem with these long tail keyword searches is that they bring up nothing to support "Postmodern Buddhism" as a separately existing entity. For example the first occurrences of the word in the links given come up with postmodern modifying the nouns thought, pundits, culture, scenarios, writers, foibles, theory and themes. None come up with Postmodern Buddhism as far as I can see. While I'm probably convinced that there is a such as thing as postmodern views of Buddhism, I'm not convinced there is such a thing as Postmodern Buddhism. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The titles of the books I have included use the term "postmodern thought in Buddhism" and "Buddhism and postmodern imag." and "Teaching Buddhism in the postmodern university" and "study of buddhism in the postmodern world" etc. If you google 'postmodern buddhism for Google books. I am just following the naming conventions at Postmodernism, so there is Postmodern Christianity, Postmodern religion etc.

Please see SEE THIS VERSION

Delete. Although many references have been adduced, they do not in my view support the existence of a notable entity called Postmodern Buddhism. As a small example, a recent reference from the BBC website does not relate to postmodern Buddhism, but rather describes how ancient religions such as Buddhism have elements which echo - but obviously predate - postmodern thinking.[9] Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and there's no real references that convince me this should stay. Basileias (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability: Postmodern interpretations of all religions are included in most University courses - I am sure lots of University students and younger people who are more postmodern in their thinking would appreciate an article like this. Given the connection to the main article postmodern religion, the topic is worthy. Postmodern theory - critical literacy- is included in primary school curriculums. If we can have Postmodern Christianity, and Postmodern law, then we can have Postmodern Buddhism. You can really say that there is no such thing as postmodern Buddhism because we live in a postmodern era.
Further sources: Considerable serious work is being done concerning postmodernism and Buddhism. See Newman Robert Glass, Working Emptiness: Toward a Third Reading in Buddhism and Postmodern Thought (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995) and David Loy, ed., Healing Deconstruction: Postmodern Thought in Buddhism and Christianity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996).

Park, Jin Y (2008) Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayan and the possibility of postmodern ethics - Lexington Books
American University - Washington DC "Jin Park specialises in Buddhist philosophy/postmodernism...In her comparative study, Park reads Zen and Huayan Buddhism together with postmodern thought"
Postmodern Buddhism also refers to Buddhism within the context of postmodern society

I don't think we should have some have religions included, Postmodern Christianity, Postmodern Neopaganism, and exclude other religions, like Postmodern Buddhism. The main article, postmodern religion, won't be very good if we can't branch out to all of the different postmodern religious interpretations.
Following the naming conventions already established at Postmodernism, the correct title for an article about postmodern interpretations of religion, and Buddhism in the postmodern era, is Postmodern Buddhism
Logically can we say that there is no such thing as Postmodern Buddhism when we live in a postmodern age? Can we say that people can't interpret religion, whatever the religion, from a postmodern perspective?

See source Source: A magic still dwells: Comparative religion in a postmodern age - University of California--Kary247 (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The above comment Can we say that people can't interpret religion, whatever the religion, from a postmodern perspective? illustrates the problem with this article. No we (Wikipedia) CANNOT say this. All we can do is find reliable sources which carry out this interpretation, and the article does not have sources that specifically discuss a concept termed "Postmodern Buddhism". Given that 'postmodern' is a term applied to specific cultural aspects in the West, particularly in Europe, it seems unlikely that the bulk of practitioners of Buddhism (who, guess what, don't live in Europe) would even put the two terms in the same sentence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't run a search on Asian search engines to find out about postmodern Buddhism, that is a good idea though - the Dalai Lama is an example of a Buddhist who uses postmodern interpretations of Buddhism. The article does need more sources and information, but is only a few weeks old. Some of the ideas are established in the main article so I thought it would be circular referencing to reuse the same sources in the connected article. The naming conventions at Postmodernism mean that the title of the article is Postmodern Buddhism, but the topic of the article is postmodern interpretations of Buddhism and Buddhism in the postmodern era etc. Reliable sources about postmodern interpretations of buddhism and Buddhism in the postmodern era can be found by running a search on Google books using keywords like postmodern religion buddhism and buddhism postmodern religion.--Kary247 (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I reiterate - we are only fully in a postmodern era in western Europe. You speak as if the whole world is exhibiting the same cultural artefact. Unless either (a) the Dalai Lama has specifically spoken of "Postmodern Buddhism", or a commentator has described his utterings as "Postmodern Buddhism", it is not acceptable as a source for this article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these Google books may be good sources for an article in the category of Philosophy about postmodern interpretations of Buddhism postmodern religion buddhism and buddhism postmodern religion, but of course I have not had time to work through these sources yet, because the article was only created recently.--Kary247 (talk) 19:57, 5 January 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment: The majority of comments are for delete but sources have been asserted but are unevaluated. It would be very helpful if these sources could be evaluated and commented upon as they are the basis on which the consensus hangs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spartaz, if not for you so much of my time would have been wasted and a good topic ditched. I just don't have time to go through the thousands of Google books but here is a quote that might be useful from one of the Google books.

"Postmodern Buddhism is seen in much of the Shamb-hala community of Tibetan Buddhism led by the Dalai Lama, and in the widespread fascination with the mystique of zen. Postmodern Hinduism is found in the teachings of many popular Indian gurus, in the West's discovery of the wisdom of Vedanta, and in the growing popularity of yoga and other Vedic traditions. Postmodern Taoism is seen in the popularity of tai chi, chi gong, and feng shui, and in the renewed interest in traditional Chinese medicine. Postmodern Judaism can be recognized in the newly revived tradition of the Kabbalah." - Steve McIntosh, Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution (Get the book.) Amazon.

Just to save time - Ghandi is a postmodern thinker. Dalai Lama etc. I would think that given that we have postmodern religion now (did not get deleted) and given that Postmodern Christianity did not get deleted, Buddhism should be included too?--Kary247 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 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. Davewild (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neilasparophobia[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources for this - there are plenty of Google hits, but every one I've looked at has been a blog, or a Q&A site, or similar, so I wonder if it's some sort of set-up hoax? Zero hits on Google News, Books or Scholar. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax at all! Look up "What is the fear of Aliens?" Then you will find out, that there it is! --Alienfreak4life (talk) 03:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Alienfreak4life (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Can you provide a reliable source for the answer, as per WP:RS? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't the fear of aliens xenophobia?--v/r - TP 03:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's just aliens as in "strangers" or "foreigners", not the X-Files outer-space kind. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did a little bit of googling, as Alienfreak4life suggested, and everything I could find pointed to xenophobia. I have a feeling that the broad definition of xenophobia is meant to include aliens, but heck I'm not an expert.--v/r - TP 03:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Infact, this List_of_phobias specifically includes aliens as Xenophobia.--v/r - TP 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yep, "aliens", but what does it mean by that - "a resident born in or belonging to another country", or an "extra-terrestrial", or maybe both? Extra-terrestrial is what Neilasparophobia is alleged to refer to. If you Google for "fear of extraterrestrials", you find a few Q&As, and some people speculating that it is "Xenophobia", but I can't find any reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, and one of the things that makes me think it's a hoax is that the first 5 letters, "Neila" is "Alien" backwards, and if you Google "parophobia", you find hits that say it's a fear of sexual perversion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I noticed the backwards thing too. Good on you to google Parophobia, I didn't think to do that.--v/r - T P 14:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious hoax. Even if it's famous on the Internet, it's still a hoax. JIP | Talk 14:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 178 Google hits. It's the Diet Coke of evil things on the internet, 178 hits, not evil enough. Besides, who wants to spell out neilasparophobia? Mandsford 22:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks verification. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can find a couple of sources saying that, at least as a science fiction theme, fear of aliens is indeed simply xenophobia (as of course the root of the word — ξένος, translated to Latin as alienigena, by Johann Friedrich Schleusner, which is in turn the root of alien in Middle English — suggests). Uncle G (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a word. Perhaps Wiktionary would take it. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I really did see it on Wiki Answers, no joke. --Alienfreak4life (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Crank down the credulity level with what you read on the WWW. Do what is stated at User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating sources. Was the person who wrote that named? No, xe wasn't. Can you identify that xe has credentials or expertise in the subject and a good reputation for fact checking and accuracy? No, you cannot. Was it fact checked or peer reviewed before publication? No, it's a self-submission WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 16:38, 14 January 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. Courcelles 07:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa Olympics[edit]

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

This is an 80Kb article about a study to possibly make an Olympic bid. The article states that there is no support from the US committee for a Tulsa bid, and 2020 Summer Olympics does not include Tulsa as a possibility. Moreover, the article talks as much or more about Atlanta's Olympic bid than Tulsa and it's full of original research. I'm sorry, but I just can't understand its encyclopedic value. Krakatoa Katie 02:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete synthesis and coatrack. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a bid that has not come to fruition yet. We already know that the U.S. will not be submitting a bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics. According to 2016 Summer Olympics, the International Olympic Committee apparently officially starts the bidding process nine years before the Games (two years before the site is selected, which in turn is seven years before the Games). Thus, an official bid for Tulsa could not be mounted before 2015 at the earliest. Hence, I couldn't support an article about this bid until at least 2014, which is when the U.S. Olympic Committee would choose its bidding city for 2024, if indeed it chooses to bid at all for that year. I also agree that this article devotes way too much of its content to discussion of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 January 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. Courcelles 07:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Albert Harley de Vere-Drummond[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Main claims to notability are being a notable persons godson and being a notable persons father. Oh, and also a very minor member of the aristocracy. No real significant coverage in reliable third party sources. E. Fokker (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any way he passes WP:GNG either. He's not royalty. Notability is not inherited by the natural father of a director. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 11 January 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. Courcelles 07:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Gay Meditation Group[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for organizations, just a couple of comment pieces in the community section of a newspaper. E. Fokker (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to have been created to advertise the group and no notability is apparent. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 13 January 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. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magiboards[edit]

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

This was recently restored at WP:REFUND, but I'm sure it isn't notable. I'd have selectively merged to whiteboard, only I can't find a single non-promotional source. Fences&Windows 02:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reserving judgment in case the requesting editor somehow pulls off a WP:HEY, but my read of the REFUND request indicates that there might be a WP:COI issue here. -- RoninBK _{T C} 09:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability. I think the phrase "Although this history is largely anecdotal the story has been confirmed by various people, including his former wife ..." says it all. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced, no depth of coverage discernable from Google News/Books, no attempt at improvement.
Keep: I Have attempted to improve, but no documented sources available. The source of the story is not in any way related to Magiboards. In order to verify it one would have to contact the source and obtain further details about events as they happened; this would compromise the privacy of the source. There may be minutes of the meeting at the company he worked for, but I doubt if these can be retrieved after such a long time. I understand that content must be verifiable, but many legends for instance are not and if it is sufficient to state "According to the Golden Legend the narrative episode of Saint George and the Dragon took place in a place....." why can this anecdotal fact not be accepted? The following is an email sent to Magiboards last year "Message: To Whom it may concern, I'm a student at the University of Leeds, and i'm doing a project on the history of educational technology aids. My focus is on the development of the blackboard from a slate to what it is today. I'm just wondering about the history of the whiteboard. I was directed by my lecturer to your company as the founding company of the whiteboard. Being connected as such i was hoping that you could shed some light on the history of the whiteboard and share information about educational technology aids? i look forward to hearing from you." This is just one example of several requests received and I therefore believe that there is educational merit in the Magiboards Wiki. It has little or no promotional value otherwise. As said, I have attempted to improve it, but remain open to suggestions to improve further to meet objections to inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanderstap (talk • contribs) 13:50, 31 January 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. Davewild (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Pena[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per membership on the U-17 Canada men's national youth soccer teams and clause 1 of WP:NFOOTBALL.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clause 1 of NFOOTBALL states "any officially sanctioned senior international competition" - youth caps do not confer notability. Giant Snowman 23:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, as above, change to delete. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 23:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly strike out your keep !vote then - it looks like you're contradicting yourself otherwise! Thanks and regards, Giant Snowman 23:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 1 January 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) 01:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; the article appears to say that he has debuted for a fully professional side. Is the Canadian Soccer League not professional? And if not, is it the highest non-professional league? Ironholds (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The CSL is not fully-professional, as confirmed by WP:FPL, and playing in a semi-professional level is not enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Regards, Giant Snowman 02:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; they've changed the guideline (it used to be that the top semi-professional league would also be considered notable). Just making sure to check I wasn't missing anything; taking this into account, I would suggest deleting this article until such an occasion that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reason for this player to pass WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone 11:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:07, 15 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Balder[edit]

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

Procedural listing following the outcome of a deletion review. The concern is that the subject of the article is not notable. Mkativerata (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though his one documentary has some coverage by presumably reliable sources, there is zero significant coverage of the person. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Deletion review was correct however that it is not a speedy case as there is a claim of notability.--96.22.106.146 (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the discovering of a disappeared neightborhood of Manhattan has weight enough to sustain the notability of Balder's work and contribution to the history of New York City and the Spanish immigration during and after the Spanish Civil War. It pass WP:GNG. The sources are as a matter of fact "realiable" and the coverage is obviously "significant", since all and the most important Spanish media talk directly and indirectly about the subject, or interview him. The sources are "independent of the subject or its affiliates". It pass WP:CREATIVE, read points 3 and 4, and the significance of its work as writer about the history of the Spanish american community of Manhattan "has won significant critical attention" and / or being "a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." All at the same time. Indeed, now there are enough international references of the filmmaker as a well known writer of children books and historical fiction for the last 8 years, and information about its translation into italian, nederlands, romanian and french. --Lolox76 (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The "find sources" for "images" does not match with Google results above expressed. See here--Lolox76 (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a very problematic article which needs to be rewritten and wikified, but the sources listed, including the Latin America Herald Tribune, the Hartford Courant, and El Pais indicate notability of the subject. (The same style problems can be found at the related article Little Spain.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 7 January 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) 01:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While yes, the article is a bit of a mess, the sources offered[10][11] seem to confirm notability. As the article's issues can be corrected through regular editing, deletion is not required. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:38, 9 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Atkin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this for deletion. Any real notability comes from the video he created (which doesn't have an article). We should rethink his article now that the elections (where his video gained popularity) have long since passed. Vasant56 (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like he meets any of the notability requirements for a creative professional.

Since his video was a parody of another internet meme, maybe we should just reference him in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasant56 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 1 January 2011

Keep This is a well-referenced article and references #2 and #3 are strong. Notable for several viral videos (not one ) about politics in both Australia and the USA. I don't know why this nomination is unsigned, so I ask the nominator to identify themself. Cullen328 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Properly and well-referenced article that is more than one-event. Coverage by Australian media about an Australian citizen for his initial and subsequent actions through continued coverage is plenty good enough. Meets WP:GNG. That something else does not have an article simply means that it lacked the coverage... and not that this fellow is then somehow non-notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 5 January 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) 01:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources, so he meets the general notability guideline.--Beloved Freak 15:07, 8 January 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. Without prejudice to (re-)creating a disambiguation page in the form recommended by WP:MOSDAB Sandstein 13:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecostructure[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a stub for what may eventually become a disambiguation page. The speedy deletion template was added so quickly it must have been done by a bot. I would hope to be able to discuss this with a real human. I was motivated to create this page when a few months ago someone mentioned "ecostructure" on the "infrastructure" page. The word intrigued me, so I Googled it, and this admitedly very rough draft is essentially a result of these Google searches. AlexPlante (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any actual concrete and coherent concept being explained, here? Because the article as it stands doesn't convey one to me, a reader. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy-deleting was by User:Aaaabbbbccccddddeeeeffff. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite I saw this on speedy, and had not decided what to do about it--it fit no speedy criterion, but seemed to be intended to include a number of promotionally worded sections for different things, most of them not likely to be notable. The first section should be expanded with the actual references; possibly it it is just a vogue word with no specific meaning, but I'd need to judge that after seeing a proper article. . There is no need for a disam page unless the other aspects can be written into separate articles. I strongly support the idea of combination articles for closely related things not each worth a separate article, but this is an example where only the vague idea of naming something by what might seem like a fashionable variant term is in common. That does not make an article. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun to rewrite the article. Actually, I've just re-formatted it. I hope to flesh it out more by Tuesday, if it's not deleted by then. AlexPlante (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more material. The word has at least 4 meanings, that are described in the article. There seems to be a 5th meaning, this time medical, but I don't seem to be able to find any good explanations for it on the web. AlexPlante (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a reference for the medical term: it's ultrasound jargon AlexPlante (talk) 01:34, 2 January 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) 01:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added new material & links, and did some reorganizing of the article. Apparently 300 people a day view the article, and I hope some of you will improve it or comment on it.AlexPlante (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I applaud AlexPlante and other authors for the recent attempts to improve the article, but at its heart it is still a discussion of multiple definitions of a word, and that word is a neologism. Thus the article runs afoul of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary on two counts. Articles on some of the concepts the word is said to refer to already exist, but don't use the word; new articles on the other concepts may be created, though it is not clear that this would be the proper title for any of them. Since no current articles use the term in their titles, disambiguation is not necessary. Cnilep (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would make sense to move the whole thing over to the Wiktionnary? I'm not sure how to do that, or how to link to Wiktionnay article in a Wikipedia article. (This whole thing started because someone brought up the term "ecostructure" in the infrastructure article, and my original aim was to create a stub "ecostructure" article so I would link to it from the infrastructure article, and hope others would flesh out this article) AlexPlante (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could create an Ecostructure article over at Wiktionary if you think it would help. Linking to a Wiktionary article from Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) is simple enough, you can use either [[wiktionary:Ecostructure]] or [[wikt:Ecostructure]] to get there. I would read up on their policies first though, such as Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next weekend (if I have time) I'll cut and paste some of the more enclyclopedia-like paragraphs to the relevant articles, and I'll create the wiktionnary page. I hope no-one deletes the article until I have time to do this. AlexPlante (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get back in time, you can always ask the closing admin for a copy of the article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 04:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the whole thing to my sandbox AlexPlante (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: malformed article that appears to be a disambiguation page with a number of the disambiguated-to-topic-stubs bolted on. The result is a multiple-meaning-of-one-neologism-based WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Unclear if any of the 'stub-topics' are individually notable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a dictionary term and neologism. AlexPlante seems to be taking a good direction with this, best of luck to them. --Nuujinn (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied and pruned page Ecostructure into a nearly normal disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:33, 16 January 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. Courcelles 07:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koshijutsu[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article that is essentially a definition (and WP is not a dictionary) and a paragraph extolling the virtues of its subject. There is no indication of notability and the article has been tagged for a number of issues, some going back as far as 2007. It's been tagged as unsourced since 2009. THe PROD was deleted by an SPA IP user. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete following the nominator's comments. Janggeom (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources to show this term is notable, except as a dictionary definition. Astudent0 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waiuku AFC[edit]

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

Semi-professional, little coverage, does not meet WP:CLUB Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete – Yes. No coverage at all. Novice7 | Talk 08:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this team competes at a high enough level to qualify for the NZ National Cup competition, and is therefore notable by WP:FOOTBALL's standards. Giant Snowman 14:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless of course all teams in the Lotto Sport Italia NRFL Division 2 league will be deleted. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:29, 7 January 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) 01:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GiantSnowman. matt91486 (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Third level of NZ pyramid - semi-professional. Can't see why we would delete it. Nfitz (talk) 16:38, 9 January 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) 01:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of darts player nicknames[edit]

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

As per WP:IINFO Gnevin (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This doesn't seem to need it's own page; just put what the players' nicknames are on their respective pages. Actually, I think they are already there. Epass (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I fail to see the point in this list. Having a nickname is not notable by itself, so this list is indiscriminate. We might just as well have a list of first names of darts players. JIP | Talk 14:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:IINFO and trivia concerns. If it is sourced, just include it in the lead of the person's article, i.e. Joe "My Cool Nickname" Smith. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 9 January 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. merge and delete is not possible. If merged a redirect must be left behind. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punch capacitor[edit]

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

Not notable enough to warrant own article. Merge with capacitor. Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do that, then. This is Articles for deletion, not Articles for merging. AFD, and the deletion tool, form no part of the article merger process. Don't bring articles here if all that you want done is some exercise of the ordinary edit tool, which you yourself have. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close AfD is not WP:PM. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that AfD is WP:PM. I'm saying that the content from this article should be moved into capacitor and then this article should be deleted as a non-notable topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not possible. WP:MAD . 65.93.15.213 (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless there is a particular reason to delete a redirect, admins should feel free to interpret 'Merge and delete' votes as 'Merge.'" Source: WP:MAD Guy Macon 22:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The nominator is confused on policy, and is proposing a merger of content that precludes deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:48, 11 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Good[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. He was not a principal violinist in an orchestra (see WP:MUSIC) and notice of his UFO-beliefs do not extend beyond the ufology community. jps (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unverified. Claims in the article that might make him notable are unverified and are tagged "citation needed". No independent references at all are provided. He wrote some books but I could find no reviews of them or of him. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 6 January 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, Courcelles 00:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless some reliable non trivial sources are found, he only seems to get passing mentions or name dropped in sources I've seen. Mattg82 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 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) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Watkins[edit]

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

This is a Welsh rugby player who I am unable to find satisfactory BLP cites. He is a non-international player, played in a non first-class team before professionalism. His only links to notability are his relatives. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 January 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, Courcelles 00:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No useful cites found - Ariconte (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of him meeting WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 14 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D'Sound - Live at Rockefeller Music Hall 2001[edit]

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

EP with no evidence of notability. PROD was removed by author without really fixing the issue. Albacore (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 January 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, Courcelles 00:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable EP per WP:NALBUMS. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 18:48, 9 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Janković[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 January 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, Courcelles 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:ATH Spiderone 20:44, 9 January 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Bailey[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously he plays in the Canadian professional league and his career is not ended.I think the article should stay.Drjmarkov (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has never played in a fully-professional league, therefore failing relevant notability guidelines. Saying "his career isn't over yet" violates WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 13:51, 6 January 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, Courcelles 00:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Google News revealed a couple of mentions dating back to his signing with and release from the then-MetroStars, but there was nothing close to substantial coverage. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:15, 8 January 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 by Administrator User:Jimfbleak per G11. I am merely completing the procedure for showing the outcome on the deletion discussion. Mandsford 16:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis ladder (née Tennis ladders)[edit]

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

non-notable -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion It's just a form of tennis competition which, if it is notable at all, could be added as a one-liner to the Tennis article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We actually have a whole article on game ladders (more properly known, and certainly more widely known in sources, as ladder tournaments). This article appears to be mainly an advertisement, for the externally linked WWW site, masquerading as an article. A redirect from tennis ladder (note the singular) to game ladder would stop future re-growth, and can be enacted without any use of the deletion tool by simply ~~renaming this article from plural to singular, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals), and~~ redirecting it. Uncle G (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it was intended as an advertisement. It's a first-time contribution by a new editor who isn't yet familiar with the Wikipedia style of writing. If it's a masquerade, then it's a good one. However, the article seems suddenly to have been deleted while I'm typing the comment, with no explanation. Mandsford 13:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It's a straight word-for-word copy of this advertisement, pasted into Wikipedia not to make an article but to point to a WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I think that the discussion needs to go the full run, with a chance for someone to establish notability of this type of ladder tournament with reliable independent verifiable sources, there's no sourcing except to a link to a website that isn't operational. If it's an ad, it ain't much of one. Mandsford 15:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladder tournament (to which Game ladder points). Tennis ladders are pretty well known, so something should be available. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete I speedied this as an obvious advertisement for www.tennisladders.net/. Why are we even discussing the merits of something that ends with the plug Ladders are a blast. They are a great way to meet new players and improve match playing skills. If you haven't played in a tennis ladder, then you have been missing out.? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 10 January 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. Courcelles 07:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Crystal Waters[edit]

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

Didn't chart. No sources found. Fails notability for albums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Not very notable, a short Allmusic review is all I've found. Mattg82 (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - My opinion is that per precedent in the Albums Project, a review (however short) by AllMusic grants sufficient notability for an album, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedic project in which the discography for a notable artist should be complete. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 4 January 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, Courcelles 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete allmusic attempts to live up to its name: be a record of ALL music. If inclusion of a short review there meant it was notable for wikipedia, wikipedia would be inundated with albums otherwise non-notable. A notable artist's discography should be complete. That doesn't mean each compilation album needs an article. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:30, 12 January 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.