< 5 June 7 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep arguments haven't effectively refuted the essential deletion argument that there aren't the sources to expand this beyonga dicdef and its already covered in wikt Spartaz Humbug! 17:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moose knuckle[edit]

Moose knuckle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition of a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. see WP:NOTDICT; Wiktionary has it covered. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible penis line. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my new !vote below.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears they kept Cameltoe soley because it's a widely used word, with mention in some mainstream newspapers. Nobody cited any sources that provided any encyclopedic content other than the definition. Misguided deletion decisions like that make me wonder if they don't just need to decide that Wikipedia is both a dictionary and an encyclopedia. If we can get rid of Visible penis line and moose knuckle, I'd be happy to re-nominate cameltoe, in the hopes of getting away from these dictionary definitions and back on track. Same goes for handbra. On the other hand, trying to delete dictionary definitions of slang terms could easily turn into a full time job, considering how many editors like writing dictionary definitions. Why don't they just go to Wiktionary and define slang terms to their heart's content? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what sources are available, not how many are currently cited. There are many sources available. (In any case, the ones included are not all self-published, per your claim).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for published sources, we've got Vanity Fair and Chuck Palahniuk, as well as a mixed drink recipe, making it kind of hard to claim this is just a dictionary entry. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Popular_Culture#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMoose_knuckle μηδείς (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, Ohconfucius, what can we do? I'm afraid that unlike "Handbra"--or even "Cameltoe"--the topic of, um, "Mooseknuckle" just doesn't inspire that much passion---.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite this material specifically. We need to see encyclopedic content about the term. Not just proof that the term is being used. That only proves existence. See, again, WP:NOTDICT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:07, 13 June 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 09:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Western Arctic New Democratic Party[edit]

Western Arctic New Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No such party exists. No references. Riding association is not notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
both North Dakota Republican Party and Utah Democratic Party contain members who are/were elected representatives at state or higher level. Liberal Democratic Party (New South Wales) included notable members. Western Arctic New Democratic Party does not meet this. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
National Action Party Jalisco easily passes WP:GNG. see gnews. [1] and also has an elected representative. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't an argument in favour of keeping an article. It must be kept on its own merits. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure OTHERSTUFF is an argument — just not a very good one. Actually, there is a role for precedent at AFD and we use it all the time. The question here, which I may be wrong about, is whether this is the territorial affiliate of the NDP. If it is, it should be in as a notable per se political organization, end of story. If it is not, there's not enough sourcing and it should go away. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 14 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurenţiu Brănescu[edit]

Laurenţiu Brănescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable youth player. All his league appearances have been in the non-fully-pro Liga II, and his international appearances have been at the youth level, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. Coverage is all run off the mill publications about his transfer to Juventus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 June 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. Keep arguments havn't actually found any sources that discuss this particular terms so the delete argument that this is already covered in wiktionary and fails as a dicdef hasn't been refuted, Spartaz Humbug! 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visible penis line[edit]

Visible penis line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If this deserves coverage at all (which is an open question), it is solely as a wiktionary definition, where it is already covered. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even the refs here are primarily non-RS, and nothing more than a definition is offered, with most of the article being completely unsourced. Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument for keeping it is that it has google hits? tedder (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've got google scholar and 50,000 hits all meaning the same thing - what is the rationale for deltion? Has camel toe been deleted? Odd that we are more afraid of men's than woman's naughty bits. μηδείς (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Camel toe has plenty of available references. A single Google Scholar result doesn't indicate a depth of coverage, and again, counting hits is specious at best. tedder (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moose knuckle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits is a minor part of a non-policy essay. Why not try WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NODEADLINE. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that all of these thousands of hits don't give you any facts, let alone insight, other than the definition of the term. Some slang terms have colorful, interesting histories which shed light on society in all sorts of ways. You can recognized them by the fact that reliable sources have lots to say about them. Other slang terms just exist: you got the term, and you got the definition, end of discussion. And there is a perfect job for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Read all of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and you can't escape the conclusion that slang pages like this should be deleted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are rejecting it in terms of not being a guideline, I'll invoke WP:OSE: my personal name, in quotes, has 3x as many google hits as this term. I can create an article now? The answer is no, because the guideline is notability, and there are insufficient reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. tedder (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, give us a full first, middle and last name and if in quotes they generate more than the same for the three words visible penis line I will change my vote. But sophistical comparisons of one apple to three oranges hardly helps here. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it isn't a vote, I'd expect that opinions based on counting Google hits will be ignored, since even millions of hits fail to change a dictionary definition into an encyclopedia article, and no number of self-published sources is equal to one reliable source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just looked up the Albion Seed quote and it doesn't get into a discussion of the crotch area at all.

backcountry women dressed in...a full bodice with deep decolletage, tight-fitting waist, short, full skirt and a hem worn high above the ankle[: white] homespun linsey-woolsey garments, often of exquisite beauty and refinement. ... Male backsettlers...commonly wore shirts of linen in the summer and deerskin in the wintertime. [The...] upper garment was cut full in the chest and shoulders, with broad seems that ran horizontally across the front and back, and was drawn or "cinched" tightly at the waist. The effect was to enlarge the shoulders and the chest. Much as female costume created an exceptionally strong sense of femininity, male dress in the backcountry put equally heavy stress on masculinity. The dress ways of the backcountry were designed to magnify sexual differences. The men of the backcountry wore loose, flowing trousers or "drawers".... The lower legs were sometimes sheathed in gaiters called "leather stockings."

However, a century or so just-previous, the style throughout Europe was for men to wear tight-legged (or was it just thin-material?) trousers with a cod-piece on top so it's entirely possible that Davy Crockett's, et al's, buckskin or linen breeches (depending on the weather) were somewhat revealing, by Puritan standards--just as the "dandies'" thigh-hugging style was (as in the iconic image of Uncle Sam) of a later era's tailoring.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you cite these references please? As per WP:NOTDICT, instances of the term being used are not relevant. That only proves the term exists, and existence is not the issue. We are looking for encyclopedic content, about the term. In other words, something more than what you would find at Wiktionary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not taking the current title as a common term but considering instead the topic of men's dress where the outline of mens' penises are visible, is it possible that applicable references could likely be found by such means as, say, doing an Internet search of the exact phrase penis visible (GOOGLE NEWS ARCHIVE) or visible penis (GOOGLE NEWS ARCHIVE) but then add in the word fashion or style or dress?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't keep articles because one editor thinks it might be possible to find encyclopedic material. We keep articles when editors actually find encyclopedic sources and cite them. It is not constructive to drag this discussion out longer if you don't have a good argument.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • wp:N's wp:FAILN section in my view provides a pretty straightforward rebuttal. "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself...." IAC, I've added a citation to the 18th C. designer Geo. Brummell here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edits are violations of Wikipedia:No original research. You cite sources that merely mention men wearing tight pants, and then you pretend they're talking about visible penis lines. You should not be putting words into the mouth of your sources this way. Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your contention that, eg, dandies' style of dress did not accentuate the genitalia is unsupportable. However, Brummell--whose fashion sense, by the way, is the reason (according to fashion scholars) that modern men wear a suit and tie--did in fact popularize this style. Full stop. See the biography, Beau Brummell page 121: "...tight pale breeches, such as those pioneered by George Brummell, accented the crotch."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source mentions the "crotch", and your imagination supplies the "penis" and the "line". That is WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRANKIE, whatever you want to call it. Wikipedia is not the venue for you to publish these ideas of yours. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguments keep wandering further and further from the original subject. I'm not going to waste time trying to refute this new question you've brought up about Anthony Weiner because the connection just isn't there. There is no need for a Wikipedia article that collects together ever single book or news article that mentions of a man's crotch area, and if there was, Visible penis line would not be that article.

    There comes a time when one must listen to other editors. A number of editors have tried to get through to you here, but apparently it is not working. The fact is, the more third opinions you solicit, the more editors line up to delete the article. And their comments indicate a growing frustration with wasting time on this. Have you not noticed that? Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sir, please wp:AGF. Do you personalize debates whereever you comment throughout the project or is this an isolated case? IAC we're all encouraged to avoid accusing each other such things as "tendentious editing" on article talkpages or on an AfD but rather are encouraged to put our money where our mouth is and raise such accusations at wp:ANI.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got two AFD pages going on this, and you've added the OR noticeboard. And you want to add ANI. That's called forum shopping. It looks like an attempt to filibuster. It walks like a filibuster. It talks like a filibuster. It smells like a filibuster. Could it be a filibuster? WP:QUACK? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your command of the English language is exquisite. Yet without specificity youyr claims ring hollow. What lies? What original research? Please be as specific as you can be offensive. μηδείς (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far I haven't had any success with fashion books, but I found "The Book of the Penis" in Google Books. The chapter "The penis in fashion" has 14 pages and begins with descriptions of the kynodesme and the codpiece. As far as I can tell we have no general article on this notable topic yet, and widening this one or the "moose knuckle" article would be the obvious solution. Hans Adler 17:12, 14 June 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 (WP:NAC). JJ98 (Talk) 02:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Powerpuff Girls characters[edit]

List of The Powerpuff Girls characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Totally unreferenced, this Powerpuff Girls characters lacks a lot of sources and citations. JJ98 (Talk) 19:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 June 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 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main cities of Italy[edit]

Main cities of Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Referred to community rather than proceeding with previously-nominated speedy. While this article in its current state seems pointless, I do feel that a general overview or summary isn't worthless. Perhaps the community will have an idea about whether there is potential use for this fork. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 17:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monipose[edit]

Monipose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm pretty sure this page is a joke. It's just made up of random associations from the show. There are no citations for it and all references to it in Google refer to the article. Serendipodous 17:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 June 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological List of Alabama Baptist Churches and Circuit Preachers in and around Clay County, Alabama 1838-1946[edit]

Chronological List of Alabama Baptist Churches and Circuit Preachers in and around Clay County, Alabama 1838-1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable and fundamentally trivial topic. This is a topic that is inherently only of limited local interest. The published source cited does not indicate notability, as it is a locally published document of which only 1000 copies were printed. This is a recreation of a couple of articles that were previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist Churches in Alabama and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay County Baptist Preachers 1838-1946. The first of these led to a total rewrite of the article (the current version of List of Baptist Churches in Alabama has no relation to the article that was nominated for deletion) and the second led to deletion of the article. The creator of the current page is asserting (on the new page and on his talk page) that because the AfD debate for List of Baptist Churches in Alabama led to a "keep" result, this new page was kept and is notable. That is an erroneous interpretation of the previous AfD, and anyway notability is not inherited from the other list (the fact that a list of some Baptist churches in Alabama was found to be a notable topic does not make all Baptist churches in Alabama notable). This should be eligible to speedy deletion as a recreation of a page that was deleted through AfD, but for the technicality that one of the prior pages was retained. Orlady (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, Sarek. I should have reviewed the history more closely. However, that AfD would have closed as "Delete" if the author hadn't requested deletion first. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, at the time it was nominated for deletion, List of Baptist Churches in Alabama did have some resemblance to the current article. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It mentioned the same churches in the same order, but it didn't list any of the ministers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 June 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vermin Supreme[edit]

Vermin Supreme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT#NEWS; simple as. There is no evidence that this person is any more "notable" than any other joke candidate. Ironholds (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:GYNOT for why Google search results are not a valid measure for establishing notability.--JayJasper (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he fails WP:Politician, then what is he notable for?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable for being a joke candidate and performance artist. Read #3 of POLITICIAN: unelected candidates who don't meet the previous guidelines can still be notable if they meet other notability criteria. That's not how the more specific types of biographical notability criteria work - WP:POLITICIAN not being satisfied doesn't negate WP:BASIC being satisfied. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's where we disagree. I don't see many articles where he is the subject, but rather a large number of mentions and/or blurbs in local papers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is unsatisfactory about the Boston Globe and Washington City Paper? Those aren't local. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a quick search of the news archive, that's pretty much all I can find beyond mentions in blurbs and local newspapers. It was just a quick search so I may be wrong.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that significant coverage in his local papers would not be enough, but those (Concord Monitor, the syndicated story in the Bedford Journal) added to the non-local sources establish notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At another AFD, you made a good point. I made similar points at the AFD for Jonathon Sharkey (though now I see that Sharkey is notable as an individual), and for this individual below. Please read the comment, perhaps you will agree.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't edited since February, long before this article was even created. What brings you to this discussion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What brings me to the discussion is that I am familiar with Vermin Supreme's efforts and was able to contribute the above facts. Your personal question seems to imply that I have some vested interest, which I do not. I have never met Supreme and have no particular stake in the matter other than that I value the truth and fairness. I think W'pedia's criteria for notability are fair and Vermin Supreme clearly passes them. --Thiebes (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you started the AFD for Jim Nobles, a figure much more notable than Vermin Supreme.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I strongly disagree tha Jim Nobles is somehow more notable unless you know of where he has been covered by sources like PBS, NPR, or The Economist, as Vermin Supreme has. Regardless, if you wish to debate the notability of Jim Nobles, this is hardly the forum for that. --Thiebes (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you did an archive search for Jim Nobles you'd find four times as many sources. But what the sources you provide for Vermin Supreme show is the notability of the concept of a Satirical candidacy, not the notability of the individual. The individual Vermin Supreme can be mentioned in such an article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search for Jim Nobles back then and as I recall, I did not find nationally distributed periodicals or broadcast television shows talking about him. Vermin Supreme is not merely mentioned in these sources. He is discussed at length, quoted, and pictured repeatedly. You are welcome to your opinion, but my vote stands, as I find Vermin Supreme to be a notable political satirist and this entry to be a valuable inclusion in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiebes (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[12] You seem to be more involved than you're admitting.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I received in the last 24 hours an email from Vermin Supreme complaining about the article's mention of his birth name. If my receiving an email from him has a bearing on his notability, I'm very interested to hear how, exactly, that might be. It's interesting to see how you continue to make ad hominem insinuations about me, presumably as a way to distract from the citations I offered above, rather than simply addressing the question of the notability of Vermin Supreme. Do you have some ulterior motive for attempting to undermine my Strong Keep vote? The citations I offered above remain valid and legitimate, you know. --24.20.44.169 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you have regular e-mail contact with the individual?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Do you have any relevant points to make? --Thiebes (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So then how did he know to contact you?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably he saw my comments here, I didn't ask him. --Thiebes (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you report on this page that there is some debate between Vermin Supreme and a dead cult leader named Aleister Crowley, whom you voted for in 2008. Are you still going to deny that you have something to do with this individual? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already stated that he sent me an email and that I am familiar with his work. I don't think that these facts change the value of the cited sources which demonstrate his notability. --Thiebes (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When the headlines read "If Elected, No Flying Toothbrush Monkeys", "Running Gag" and "Vermin Supreme grabs three local votes" you know the coverage is humorous, not substantial. Ole Savior got some coverage for running with a vampire, this guy does it for wearing a shoe. Hekerui (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that he has not been subject to substantive coverage. I demonstrated that is incorrect. Is your opinion that his jokster platform makes him unnotable? If so then WP:N will have to be updated to reflect that we don't include joksters, even if they receive extreme amounts of substantive coverage. Basket of Puppies 07:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From GNG: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." See the proposal above. The candidate can be more appropriately discussed at an article on "Satirical candidates".--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 13 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Association[edit]

Christian Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not particularly-well asserted here. In addition, I find it hard to believe that this is the primary topic for "Christian Association", in view of the YWCA and YMCA. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Runez[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pat Runez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable fighter based on WP:MMANOT. Previous AfD discussion resulted in a "no consensus". I voted "weak keep" then, but I think that was a mistake--I assumed he would keep fighting. He had only 4 professional fights, none with a major organization. Astudent0 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krasen Belev[edit]

Krasen Belev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly non-notable per WP:ATH, no professional experience. — Toдor Boжinov — 14:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hunter-Clarke[edit]

Robin Hunter-Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently one of the youngest local councillor's in history, so I thought there was a genuine chance he might be notable even though he doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. However, a search of google and google news shows no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so doesn't pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what has been said, but he is one of Britain's youngest Councillors, and one of the youngest in Europe due to his age - 18 ! Therefore, is it not significant ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.247.185 (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of younger councillors on much larger council of note. There is no third party coverage at any level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.120.232 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biswatosh Sinha[edit]

Biswatosh Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Benjamin[edit]

Craig Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Not-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I second the opinion, fails WP:NOTE Tashif (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 6 June 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) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TMF/A-803 LaGOWE[edit]

TMF/A-803 LaGOWE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, and violates our guidelines on coverage of fiction. Merging of content seems an unlikely solution as the list List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons has been deleted via a discussion. There is no significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Anthem 10:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, restoring an article which has been deleted by consensus at AFD requires you to use the venue of deletion review. --Anthem 06:01, 6 June 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, Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:52, 6 June 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! 17:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Martial Arts[edit]

Italian Martial Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointless list of so-called martial arts, none of which have their own WP articles and many of which can't be found on Google either. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:RS and WP:GNG andy (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: references have been added and the internet links have been added. There are wikiarticles on "italian School Of Swordmanship" in the english wikipedia and on "istrumpa" and "Bastone siciliano" on the italian wikipedia: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istrumpa, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastone_Siciliano. Simply because you guys are ignorant about something it does not mean that it does not exist. You are a very arrogant bunch. proper references to the "skill of italians in certain battles" have been added. Reliable sources are Guicciardini and Macchiavelli who reported these things as they were happening. I suggest you download the art of war by Macchiavelli and you will find the passages describing how italian and spanish soldiers armed with short swords annhiliated the famed Landsknecht and the "Invincible" swiss pikemen. Here is the link: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15772 Good reading In case you guys have trouble reading the Epub format try the txt format here: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/15772/pg15772.txt Oh...and about the martial arts being "non notable": From 756 BC (foundation of Rome) until at least 1634 (Battle of Nordlingen) firearms were either non-existent or unreliable and cumbersome and all or most of the fighting was hand-to-hand. Now take Randy Couture, Fedor Emelianenko, Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris and put them in the time machine to transport them at the Battle of Pavia (1525). How do you think they would fare facing 4 men-at-arms skilled in the "Flower of Battle" ( the true italian martial art)? How many Martial Arts Do you know that have a written manual dating from 1410 AD and recording the "moves" in great detail? take a look for yourself: http://www.thearma.org/essays/Fiore/FioreDeiLiberi_StudyGuide.v3.6.pdf If you want to get skilled at hand-to-hand isn't it smart to learn your skill from an art developed when warfare was mostly fought hand-to-hand? So how is this martial art "non-notable"?

Here is what Macchiavelli says in his Art of war: Philip Vicecounte of Milaine, being assaulted of xviii. thousande Suizzers, sent against theim the Counte Carminvola, whiche then was his capitaine. He with sixe thousande horse, and a fewe footemen, went to mete with them, and incounteryng theim, he was repulsed with his moste greate losse: wherby Carminvola as a prudente man, knewe straight waie the puisaunce of the enemies weapons, and how moche against the horses thei prevailed, and the debilitie of the horses, againste those on foote so appoincted: and gatheryng his men together again, he went to finde the Suizzers, and so sone as he was nere them, he made his men of armes, to a light from their horse, and in thesame mane, faightyng with them he slue theim all, excepte three thousande: the whiche seyng them selves to consume, without havyng reamedy, castyng their weapons to the grounde, yelded.

So the "invincible" Swiss surrendered throwing their weapons to the ground....a non-notable Martial art? Maybe for a martial art to be "notable" it has to have been founded in 1957, make you belong to a dojo that chages $ 50 a month and makes you kick and punch the air to earn your black belt. try punching and kicking a renaissance knight in full armor, or even a marine with his helmet and alice pack on and see how long your hands and feet last, Mr Non-notable. I have to agree the italian martial art should not be called "martial art" it should be only called "fior di battaglia", "The flower of battle" as no other name can describe it

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian Victoria[edit]

Vegetarian Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. could only find coverage under its old name in gnews, but it's more a few comments in the media by a member rather than indepth coverage of the organisation itself. [13]. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please provide evidence of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damián Martínez[edit]

Damián Martínez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who has yet to play at level required by WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played senior professional match, has not played senior international. Coverage all appears to be sports journalism of a general nature ClubOranjeT 07:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —ClubOranjeT 07:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Kennedy[edit]

Donnie Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No independent or reliable sources provided that focus directly on the individual. As one talk page user put it: "smells like a vanity article". Prod removed. William S. Saturn (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 01:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqah Shasha[edit]

Shafiqah Shasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. admittedly this person died in 1953, but nothing in gnews and gbooks. google just shows WP mirrors or namesakes. I can't even verify the existence of this individual in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check whether the source given in the article confirms her existence? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless someone is able to confirm that the cited book does not back her notability. With articles on people that lived and died before the Internet came up I believe we should agf on offline references even if nothing else comes up at Google, even if that book has had only local impact, as evidenced by this catalog search. --Pgallert (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the book might exist but one source is not sufficient to base a WP article on. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle. However, the reality is that, up to C class, articles with one independent source are generally accepted. Let's concentrate on deleting the unsourced ones first. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this AfD is active, there is no point asking for close as keep because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the valuable link. My policy-based reason was, however, not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but WP:IAR: For as long as nobody can look up this book, or search in Lebanese, or with other spellings of this name, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the article. Alternatively, as Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. (WP:N, footnote 3) please suggest a possible merge target rather than proposing to remove the content right away, to counter WP:BIAS. --Pgallert (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
even if the one source is accurate, the claims for notability do not meet WP:BIO. WP:AGF does not apply to assuming notability exists when it cannot be backed with multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 14:02, 10 June 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. At the end of the day, no one showed any notability of this fictional substance. Courcelles 09:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant growth hormone[edit]

Mutant growth hormone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • It's already on that list and redirecting a real thing to a list of fictional items is inappropriate. Harley Hudson (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, for the moment there is no mention of the real mutant growth hormone in Wikipedia. So a redirection to the only entry real or fictional seems appropriate. Pages that link to "Mutant growth hormone" contains only comic articles. Harley Hudson, I understand your concern. I propose the same solution that BOZ in addition a section about the real mutant growth hormone should be written in the article Growth hormone.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 200 of the pages that link to MGH do so because the article is included in the X-Men template, which generates a link from each templated page to each templated page regardless of whether MGH appears in the actual text of the article. Another 20 are redirects, user pages or project pages (including this discussion page) and should not be considered. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in a nutshell, you can not say how many pages are linked to this pages due to the X-Men template and there is 0 link for the real growth hormone.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Really? You really think that the articles on Stan Lee and Jack Kirby contain links to MGH outside the template? Ridiculous. Take the article out of the template for a day and see how many links remain. Regardless, the point still stands uncontested that there are no independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of this fictional concept. Harley Hudson (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... and always 0 link and 0 definition in wikipedia for the real growth hormone. It is not enought notable to have its own article so I vote for a merge and a redirect.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google news can help to provide some refs on the fictional one. (just to check some information) --Crazy runner (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, the number of links to or from an article is not relevant to whether the subject matter is notable. A non-notable article linked to ten thousand other articles is still non-notable and a notable subject that has no links to anywhere is still notable. The handful of Google news hits do not support the notability of the concept because they do not offer significant coverage of the concept as required by the general notability guideline. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And once again, I am not saying that we have to keep the article so why are you talking so much about Notability ??? Since when a redirection has to require the notability of an article ? There is an entry in the list of comic book drugs, some articles about comics in wikipedia use this notion, it makes sense to have a redirection to the list. Futhermore some content can be added for example the Banshee in the Marvel ultimate universe. Conclusion for me, it is a merge and a redirection.--Crazy runner (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, seriously. There is a real thing called "mutant growth hormone". Real things should not be redirects to lists of fictional items. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The page for growth hormone does not mention mutant growth hormone that I can see. Additionally I don't think it's a valid arguement for deletion that a fictional thing should be deleted because shares a name with a real world thing. If it's true we would simple rename the page Mutant Growth Hormone (Marvel Comics), not delete it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting it should be deleted because it shares the name of a real thing. I'm saying it should be deleted because the comics concept has zero sources supporting its real-world notability. Because mutant growth hormone is a real thing readers should not be misled with a redirect to a list for unreal things. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please indicate the independent reliable sources that demonstrate the real world notability of this fictional concept as required by WP:GNG and WP:WAF? Harley Hudson (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain why you are speacking about WP:GNG and WP:WAF ? BOZ vote for a Merge not a Keep and he proposes the perfect solution to take into account the real and the fictional growth hormone with two redirections.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BOZ is suggesting moving this article to a new title. Under either the existing title or the proposed new title there need to be independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of the subject. There are no such sources for the fictional hormone, which means that no article should exist under any name, including BOZ's proposed name. No sources means no article. Harley Hudson (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the end, it is not anymore an article, it is a redirection. --Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need to have full notability that a stand-alone article would require to merge this into a list. The LIST needs notability, but the individual item on the list needs only a reliable source, even a primary one. Mathewignash (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the list article already has a source so there's no need to merge one from here. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why ??? Where is the rule that tell us to write only one source by notion in a list ? We can improve the definition in the list. --Crazy runner (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist. Not really sure why that statement is such a problem for you. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a problem for me. The answer of BOZ takes into account that statement. And my question was why did you think "the list article already has a source so there's no need to merge one from here" ? I do not understand I am asking a question about sources, you speack about real and fictional. In my opinion, a section about the real MGH should be written, the MGH direct to it. A merge should be performed and MGH (comics) direct to it. It solves the notability problem and every user can access the information real or fictional.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:00, 4 June 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, -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or Redirect to List of comic book drugs.

"The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist. Not really sure why that statement is such a problem for you."

Because "Mutant Growth Hormone" is not a term that exists in the real world. "Growth Hormone" is a common term in the real world and sometimes the adjective "mutant" is put in front of it when it is an abnormal GH, so in the literature you will find the phrase "a mutant growth hormone" (hence Google finding the phrase). However, they will never actually refer to the mutated growth hormone as "mutant growth hormone," but will instead use a specific name/term for that specific mutated growth hormone. Spidey104 14:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why this should be deleted and then re-created as a redirect to Growth hormone since mutant growth hormones are real things related to real growth hormones. The already-existing Mutant Growth Hormone, which currently redirects to Mutant growth hormone, should be retargeted to the list of comic book drugs. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But since it doesn't exist no one would be looking for it on Wikipedia and having Mutant Growth Hormone or Mutant growth hormone redirect to Growth hormone would be confusing to the people looking for the MGH comic book concept that will be in List of comic book drugs. We could put a link to Growth hormone in the list article similar to Selucia/Seleucia Spidey104 15:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little unclear as to how, when you acknowledge that there exist and there is scientific literature about mutant growth hormones, you can continue to assert that they do not exist. A simple hatnote on the growth hormone article will lead anyone confused between the real thing and the fictional thing to the fictional thing. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term does not exist as something people would search for. "Growth hormones" obviously exist and there are mutated forms of growth hormones, but "mutant growth hormone" is a phrase in the literature and not a term. Having an article about "Mutant growth hormone" would be like having Red automobile be a separate article from Automobile. All mutated growth hormones would have an actual name that people would search for. Spidey104 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a few sentences out of a blog interview about a story arc that deal with a variant iteration of the fictional concept don't establish the independent notability of this fictional concept itself. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but that stuff can be kept when it is Merged and Redirected to List of comic book drugs. Spidey104 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the interview of Comic Book Resources is about the story arc with the Banshee. I took only a few quotes, a paragraph can be write to show the social commentary these comic book drugs give. I have answered the problem of only primary sources and "impossible because references don't exist". It is not the case anymore.--Crazy runner (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And why are you against a move to Mutant growth hormone (comics), an edit on Mutant growth hormone so it redirects to Growth hormone and a merge of Mutant growth hormone (comics) into List of comic book drugs ? Can we try to have a consensus on this solution ? Real word redirect to real word, fictional word redirect to fictional word and we have not the full deletion. --Crazy runner (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's an extremely complicated solution to a trivial problem. If you would like to add some of the sourced information from the article onto the entry that already exists on List of comic book drugs, I have no problem with that. — chro • man • cer  22:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can not just copy, attribution has to be given to the original author see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I do not see where is the difficulty. There is no need of an administrator to move the page because the page Mutant growth hormone (comics) is not used. And there is a need of a redirection for the articles about comics. The only ones that speack about the Mutant growth hormone for the moment.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting you copy. I suggested you add information using the same sources as found on the current article. The overwhelming majority of information on the page is plot summary from primary sources, and badly written to boot. I see no viable need for a redirect at this time. — chro • man • cer  23:30, 9 June 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! 17:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarbarians F.C[edit]

Scarbarians F.C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by article creator, who seems be a SPA with a COI. This is a non-notable amateur soccer team that has not competed at a high enough level to merit an article. GiantSnowman 02:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — tedder (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was an article, not a userpage. See Wikipedia:User_pages. Second, even if you left it on your user page, you can have a draft in your userspace but not something masquerading as an article- it's meant as a temporary home. Wikipedia is not a web host. You can use Google Sites, Squarespace, Facebook, or hundreds of other places for unencyclopedic content. tedder (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me why it has been running no problem for the past 2 years? In addition how would you know if it a notable group or not. Have you been in the city of Scarborough and seen this club yourself. I highly doubt it! (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2011 (EST)
For age of the article, see WP:ARTICLEAGE. General notability is discussed at WP:GNG; roughly, an article needs to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. The local nickel paper doesn't suffice. A single article doesn't suffice. That doesn't mean it isn't important to you, it means it doesn't pass the threshold of encyclopedic notability. tedder (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it a problem now there are hundreds of individuals using their user page as a personal page rather than for something useful even tedder who is proposing this page should be deleted uses Wikipedia as a personal page. Why is there no consistency why is his page not being deleted? (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2011 (EST)
I think you're having trouble understanding the difference between a user page and an article. All user pages are preceded by "User:" in their title, which this page does not. OCNative (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been using my user page to edit and change everything I do not know how an article was created in the first place. My teams name has changed and it may have changed unintentionally. But even then there should be some consistency. (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2011 (EST)
You've actually been working on it since 2008 in the main article space. There are millions of articles, so it probably got overlooked. The best place for it would be in the Article Incubator where other editors could help you out. tedder (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If User:Untitled F.C. wants to have this page userfied to be a subpage in their userspace, I would not object to that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding correctly these seems like a reasonable solutions. (talk) 7:21, 6 June 2011 (EST)
Metropolitan90, I would object to it. Userspace is decent for entries that could become articles that are being actively worked on. It "should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles". This is a case where it will clearly never meet notability guidelines, it would be best hosted on a web hosting provider, not part of Wikipedia. To quote further, userspace is for "short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use". tedder (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the solution here? talk) 10:34, 7 June 2011 (EST)
Use any of the options listed at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. tedder (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I cannot even use my user page? talk) 07:38, 8 June 2011 (EST)
This is not a personal website/blog - this is an encyclopedia. GiantSnowman 12:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that but why can't I have it as a User page, so many people even people that are voting for deletion here are using their User page for personal reasons. talk) 6:17, 8 June 2011 (EST)
So what is the solution here? talk) 10:34, 7 June 2011 (EST)
Might I suggest Wikia? OCNative (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a host website that will use the same templates and will not require having to put all this work to waste? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untitled F.C. (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 June 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Beckingham[edit]

Stuart Beckingham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NSKATE. whilst he has won a national championship in pairs, Australia is not a country that regularly sends multiple skaters to Winter olympics. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 3 June 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) 01:45, 6 June 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mauiva[edit]

Mauiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have searched for reliable sources to establish notability and all I was able to turn up were an article that sounds like a press release located in a small regional paper [14], a press release [15], a passing reference in the Daily Mail [16] about a similarly named company called Mauiva Air Tours (likely the same company?), and a blog post [17]. This does not appear to be enough reliable source content to establish notability. It seems it is too early to have an article - perhaps later if they build notability for their company? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 30 May 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) 01:45, 6 June 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! 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qaya Quartet[edit]

Qaya Quartet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any explanation as to why it met the A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you point us to substantial RS coverage? If it exists in what you pointed us to, I am missing it. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 6 June 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) 01:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what I can see the quartet had a celebrity status on the 70s, so it just has to be verifiable. The same can be seen here [27], and this is their discography [28]. Also this scholar search [29] is very interesting, but following the hits is complicated - frankie (talk) 23:03, 6 June 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers of Allah[edit]

Soldiers of Allah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Notable, no sources for any of the information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ookladamot (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 June 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 09:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Centrist Party[edit]

National Centrist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization that has no coverage whatsoever from independent, reliable sources. OCNative (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —OCNative (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —OCNative (talk) 01:33, 6 June 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Omar[edit]

Adil Omar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject non-notable and article is poorly sourced, most sources point back to self-website, facebook, or myspace. -- Ookladamot (talk · contribs)

Nomination made at 02:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC).
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't believe in procedure for procedure's sake, I do note that the AfD tag was removed on 30 May, and there were no comments after that date—so it might have skewed the results. I agree with a week's relisting. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I noticed that did look to see when it was removed. If it were just done yesterday I would have punched it "keep" and told Honeymarmite not do do it again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 6 June 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. . Two !votes for keep, with only the nominator voting for deletion. As SatuSuro indicates, having coverage (including a profile written about someone) is indicative of them passing the General Notability Guide (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Giannoni[edit]

Antonio Giannoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. simply being the first Italian to settle in South Australia does not grant automatic notability. at best this fact is covered in 3 books [30]. but we really do not know anything else about him. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 05:55, 4 June 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) 01:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my my, afd really has gone to some depths if indeed fails WP:BIO. simply being the first Italian to settle in South Australia does not grant automatic notability. - that comment in itself should require a response - however WP:AGF and WP:Civility require that I say no further. SatuSuro 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - the very reason for afd as provided by the nominator should in fact be the retention of the article - however slight or flimsy the record! - SatuSuro 12:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it does not grant automatic notability. Similarly does the first Fijian in South Australia grant automatic notability? My my. LibStar (talk) 12:42, 13 June 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 09:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Aboud[edit]

Benny Aboud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think being named one of the region's top CEOs by South Florida Business Journal is really enough to establish notability. —Chowbok ☠ 01:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 6 June 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rishloo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rishloo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band does not appear to meet notability standards. Albums independently released. No charting or major awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of sources provided are independent reliable sources. Nothing but listings found. This should be deleted for the eigth time. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 30 May 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, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
on further review of the evidence, can we salt this? it keeps coming back. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what research you're doing but it seems incomplete as this band appears to have tracks downloadable on Rockband 3 Xbox. This seems to be a notable and recent development that would qualify as sufficient criteria to end discussion of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.187.29 (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does having a DLC track meet any part of WP:MUSIC? HominidMachinae (talk) 04:51, 8 June 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 09:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora magazine[edit]

Aurora magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local magazine. Author is probably its publisher. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:03, 30 May 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) 01:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 07:31, 6 June 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) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Venema[edit]

Melissa Venema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dutch trumpeter. Author himself admits: "I've done my best to look in English sources and found absolutely nothing that would qualify as a reliable source." — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 3 June 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) 01:17, 6 June 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) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lerpong Wichaikhammat[edit]

Lerpong Wichaikhammat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD - fails WP:BLP1E -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for serious? This "one event" is part of a continuing reign of terror imposed by a tyrannical (and unchristian, pagan) monarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.212.206 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not about the King of Thailand, it is about one person who has been arrested once for one alleged crime. There is a section at Bhumibol_Adulyadej#Lèse majesté for the Thai lèse majesté issue, where this event has been covered, and I don't see how Lerpong Wichaikhammat has any individual notability outside of this one event. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than delete it outright, I suggest moving it to a new article devoted to the alleged criminals, lest they clutter the king's. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear that the King of Thailand did not have anyone arrested: it is already noted that HM has alluded to the alleged crime as not being a crime. Perhaps the whole of lèse majesté with respect to the kingdom should bee moved to the politics of Thailand. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:45, 2 June 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) 01:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote for deletion. The material, if need be, can be edited and added to the existing lese majeste article. There is also a First Amendment violation question here and I encourage others to explore this aspect of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank G Anderson (talk • contribs) 6 June 2011 Note: preceding comment moved here from talk page of this AfD in accordance with AGF. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:13, 6 June 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 09:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Meade's Guide to the McGowan Boys[edit]

Megan Meade's Guide to the McGowan Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for deletion because of non-notability. Kerowyn Leave a note 17:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D-Ceased[edit]

D-Ceased (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable performer, sourced only to his own website. No hits Google news, no sources found in other locations, no real assertion of notability that's not promotional. The creator has repeatedly removed speedy deletion templates (placed by another editor, not myself) so I have no faith in a PROD. — chro • man • cer  01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree' If there aren't any reliable sources other than his website, then there's no way of knowing if it's encyclopedic. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — ukexpat (talk) 15:11, 6 June 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 American City Business Journals#Forty under 40 Award. Favonian (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business Journal's Forty Under 40[edit]

Business Journal's Forty Under 40 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, No indication that the "Business Journal's Forty Under 40" is a notable list or award, all ref's are either self-published or from associated publications. Fails WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And please don't tell me this article was created to shore up Paul Dorian's notability? (As he appears on the random San Jose list)!--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:53, 31 May 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) 01:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that the subject lacks the coverage in independent, reliable sources to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas P. Caruso[edit]

Thomas P. Caruso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fellow has done a lot, but I'm not sure it meets the criteria of WP:BIO. It just looks like the life story of a regular guy who got his Ph.D., wrote some articles, and worked for a living. (I'm not saying it's not impressive, just that it doesn't meet the specific criteria.) All of the references are to his works, but not any third-party analysis establishing notability. ... discospinster talk 14:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe it doesn't meet the specific criteria of "notable". However, his works are peer-reviewed, and one is in Science which has a notable requirement for publication, so this is, through the acceptance in the article, particularly notable. Furthermore, he won a Bacaner Award from the Mayo Foundation of the University of Minnesota Medical School for his PhD thesis work. The question comes down to what is really "notable"? Who makes the decision about what is notable? I've seen some fairly insignificant people listed in Wikipedia who played some role in a particular scientific discovery which was considered notable. Is the purification of the opiate receptor considered notable? Are the hundreds of citations of his papers considered notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaruso2 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this could go in some biographical location? Is that Wikibiographies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.159.254 (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, it needs to be pointed out that the article's creator and the article's subject appear to be the same person, in which case, I draw his attention to WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI.
Regarding notability, the requirement is for the person to be the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In other words, the person must have made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This is not evident in either Google or Google News. In fact a google search for "Thomas P. Caruso" + Business Ambitions reveals only 2 or 3 pages of results, most of which are either false-positives or are unreliable sources.
Reference was made to a Baconer Award. This may satisfy the additional criterion that the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. However, this requires us to ask two things: is the award significant, and is that claim for notability sufficient to carry the whole article. As the article currently stands, the bulk of it seems to describe the subject's busness career and the aforementioned award isn't mentioned anywhere.
A claim for notability should be that which forms the opening sentence or paragraph, for which the rest of the article acts as support. The opening sentence currently refers to the subject as an entrepreneur, pharmacologist, biomedical informaticist, research program developer, software project manager, and management consultant. It therefore needs to be established that the subject is notable in each of these fields. The material currently available suggests the subject's research may be worth mentioning on a specific article relevant to the field. However, considered independently of such research and, more importantly, considered as a BLP, this article seems to fail the criteria for notability. I won't vote Delete yet, though, until someone familiar with Google Scholar can check up on whether the subject fulfils WP:ACADEMIC.
Incidentally, for the article creator's reference, the decision about what is notable is made by the Wikipedia community precisely for occasions such as this where notability is in question. Also, I must emphasise the importance of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI, mentioned above. Few Wikipedians are lenient as regards conflict of interest and may question your reasons for creating an autobiography. Just a friendly FYI. LordVetinari (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 3 June 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) 01:10, 6 June 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) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nsoft[edit]

Nsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:ORG insufficient coverage found to allow it to pass. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:07, 30 May 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) 01:09, 6 June 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian York[edit]

Jillian York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability,Conflict of Interest Primecoordinator (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC) This page is little more than a vanity page for the subject and should not have been created in the first place. Original author of the page appears to be in a personal relationship with the subject and thus creation of the page was done so in a direct Conflict of Interest. The subject lacks notability in that while having written for several publications, this is not in and of itself notable. Working for groups such as the EFF is also not notable per se as it is just one doing their job. The wording "She has been featured in" is also misleading as it infers that the subject has been verified to be notable via third party sources when in fact she has just contributed articles to these publications. This page should be deleted on these grounds as there are many who fall within these bounds, especially in San Francisco (activism, writing, academics) and they are not all notable. Primecoordinator (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Would be curious to see additional publications you mention. Also, would like to hear other user opinions as this profile piece you cite would indicate that any type of overview (such as of a restaurant, product, or person) in a notable third party source would make the subject notable for a Wikipedia article i.e. a review of Mom & Pop's Hot Dogs appears in the Boston Globe, but only there, would that make it notable from a Wikipedia vantage? There is still also the issue with this article in that it was created with a conflict of interest, although apparently Notability trumps that for your vantage? Primecoordinator (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response The Boston Globe story here is 22 paragraphs long, and is entirely devoted to this person. That's in depth coverage. I think that it would be a rare hot dog stand that would merit that degree of coverage from a major newspaper. Conflict of interest can be a problem, but is not a reason to delete an article on a notable topic. Instead it is a reason to edit the article to reflect the neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for "additional publications", she was the subject of a lengthy interview on National Public Radio, a transcript of which is available here. New Scientist discussed her research here. ABC News described her as a specialist in "free expression, politics, and the Internet, particularly in the Arab world" in their coverage of Tunisia here. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz quoted her as an expert on blogging by Iranian opposition forces here, as did the Globe and Mail here. PC Magazine quoted her on the internet shutdown in Egypt here, as did Reuters in a report here. The New York Times reported on her knowledge on the internet in Bahrain here. Al Jazeera reported that she had detected the blocking of Facebook in Egypt before Facebook itself had here. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. These should have been included originally lest the article drift in to Uncited territory Primecoordinator (talk) 04:10, 01 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 3 June 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) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Always interesting to see new users pop up out of nowhere for living person deletion requests Primecoordinator (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it needs a good deal of work and heavier reference citation. The lack of citation was the main reason I put it up for deletion as it smacked of a vanity page. Primecoordinator (talk) 23:57, 7 June 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. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YPFDJ[edit]

YPFDJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP. Only source is a primary source. v/r - TP 21:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 6 June 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. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area[edit]

Delaware Valley Rails: The Railroads and Rail Transit Lines of the Philadelphia Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all five criteria at WP:NB. Subject is an out-of-print book about rail transport in the Philadelphia area, published in 1979. According to Amazon.com,[33] it is the author's only publication and the author, himself, does not appear to have any notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: - In spite of all that's wrong with it as an article, I don't see why it can't be used as a Wikisource. ----DanTD (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can't because it's not free content. The book was published in 1979 so its copyrighted material. Besides, that wouldn't be a transwiki. I don't understand what you mean by using the article "as a Wikisource". Wikisource is an online library, not a collection of information about books. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you have a point regarding the copyright. But the book seems like it has info about the railroads that can still be useful for a lot of articles. I'm not looking for information about the book as much as I'm looking for the book to be used as info about the railroads. ----DanTD (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book is notable as it remains the definitive source on the topic of railroads in the Delaware Valley region. I believe this is stated in the article. There have been no publications of this level of detail since then. There is really nothing else on the market quite like. The author is alive and well and can answer any questions wiki might have. The author is a noted transporation expert in the U.S.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the book has tons of useful information, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. I've nominated the article for deletion; I'm not saying it shouldn't be used as a source for other articles. If the book is as notable as Oanabay says, than we need a source to prove it. I haven't found any. The fact that the author is alive is also irrelevant here. There's no reason to contact him for anything because this discussion has nothing to do with him. The book fails all the crtieria listed at WP:NB#Notability. If the book is notable, then it has to satisfy at least one of the criteria with proof (saying it's "definitive source on the topic of railroads..." doesn't count). So far there have been no valid reasons stated to keep this article. Using statements like "There is really nothing else on the market quite like" [sic] as an argument is like saying "I like it" or "It has valuble information". See WP:ATA. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 7 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Lurie[edit]

Jessica Lurie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musician of minimal note - falling below the requirement for a wikipedia biography - no objection to a redirect to any WP:NOTABLE band she may have been in - currently seems to be The Billy Tipton Memorial Saxophone Quartet Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per music project guidelines for notability this musician has made several national tours as a leader of her own ensemble (some of the musicians included in these tours have been Grammy nominated, or have been associated with Grammy winning projects). She has also had reviews written of her work that amount to more than just club calendar listings. I'll throw in that there is an Allmusic biography written as well. These things alone should be enough for notability. - Steve3849talk 20:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up the article some and added some better references, which I think goes a far way to establishing notability beyond how it looked when nominated.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - the diffs before and after show a classic rescue effort. Still needs improvement, but it passes for me. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 15 June 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) 19:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A2Billing[edit]

A2Billing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page has been edited to remove all links and references to any commercial organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.208.208.23 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 6 June 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South High Marathon Dance[edit]

South High Marathon Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student group. While this is a good cause, not all good causes are notable enough to be encyclopedic. OCNative (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —OCNative (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —OCNative (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There is a consensus below that the sources provided are not sufficient to support the claim that he was "the earliest known Chicago mob boss" or was otherwise notable. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Zagone[edit]

Mariano Zagone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Mariano Zagone article does not pass WP:BIO (Crime). Vic49 (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- --Vic49 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not find any references to prove Zagone was "boss of a Mafia group in Chicago", he is mentioned in ref "First in violence, deepest in dirt: homicide in Chicago, 1875-1920 By Jeffrey S. Adler" pg.190 as a 40 year old cigar maker that was shot. (he could have been involved with the black hand ? But no mention to him as a boss). Another ref The Black Hand: Terror by Letter in Chicago By Robert M. Lombardo pg.36, 86 again he was a cigar maker, killed. --Vic49 (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cant find any reference to prove he was a Mafia boss in Chicago. He was just a cigar maker, that was killed. --Vic49 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - also, leader does not necessarily mean the same as boss, boss means head of an organisation, while leader could mean head of a section of that organisation. The source as quoted by Location does not say that he was the earliest boss, this claim looks like synthesis of published material at the least.Quasihuman | Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecessa[edit]

Ecessa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business. Media references are trivial or press-release reprints. —Chowbok ☠ 00:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 7 June 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! 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Environmental Solutions[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Integrated Environmental Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Media mentions are trivial. Previous deletion discussion was speedily closed due to being nominated by a banned user. —Chowbok ☠ 00:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 June 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.
More