< 26 March 28 March >
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 keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go Nagaoka[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL. None of the clubs he is listed as having made first-team appearances are/were (at the time of those appearances) in leagues listed at WP:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Mayumashu (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list the WikiProject has may need revision - it lists Serie A, B and C1 and C2 as fully pro, but not Serie D Mayumashu (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my mistake - the source doesn't refer to the league by name, it instead says the "fourth league" and I had forgotten that there were two Cs. So that means he played in C2. GiantSnowman 02:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I guess too the infobox stats for him for when he was with Carpenedolo needs to be changed from O league appearances (to a dash or a question mark), or is it accurate and the source says he appeared in a cup tie or ties of some kind? Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the wording, I presume it's a league appearance - either way, the stats aren't sourced so I'll remove them. 02:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - oh, and it's normally considered polite to notify an article's creator (i.e. me) about AfDs... GiantSnowman 14:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 March 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. Notwithstanding any continuing disagreement over the use of the term "diaspora" in its broader sense (though even the nominator here seems at least somewhat won over by Sharktopus's helpful explanations below), sourcing has been provided establishing that this term has been used in reliable sources, and that it may refer singly or collectively to a number of different article topics. Whether construed as a disambiguation page or set index, none of the deletion arguments have substantively refuted its validity as a term, nor its usefulness as a pointer to the article topics listed therein. postdlf (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian diaspora[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scandinavian diaspora (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 sure how this page serves to disambiguate. It seems to have been created in an effort to legitimize the idea that all migrations are diasporas, when a contentious debate has prevailed on several of the sub articles about the use of the word diaspora. Avanu (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Since Avanu has now also placed an AfD on List of Scandinavian diasporas, and the deletion discussion directs people to this page, I don't think your simple Delete vote is going to delete one and keep the other. Sharktopustalk 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, it is rather disingenuous to continue misquoting the Category for Deletion.
A thorough review shows a much more diverse set of opinions that you present it to be. Yes, a few people 'favored' a wider definition, but most agreed that it had a specific and more narrow definition, they just didn't agree that it needed deletion as a category, and in fact, I might have voted to allow it on the same grounds if I were aware it then. But we need to be faithful to the outcome, not expand it as a referendum on all uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_8#Category:Diasporas
-- Avanu (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to quote CfD participant (and one of the 3 !votes for a narrow definition) Dingo179: "Sharktopus' summaries of the discussion are about correct. I was surprised at how broad a definition people supported for "diaspora"." I am glad you linked to the whole CfD so that people can see for themselves that, while a wide range of comments were made on both sides, the number of users making those comments is much more relevant than the number of comments because a few users made a lot of comments. The word "disingenuous" implies dishonesty, it is my belief that you and I have an honest disagreement about the relevance and outcome of the CfD, and I have tried several times to clarify what I think and why I think it. Sharktopustalk 19:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Disingenuous" implies misleading, it doesn't have to be dishonest. (Strangely enough in the quote from Dingo1729 above, you leave out the first part of the sentence: "I still pretty much agree with Avanu, but on the other hand..."
The problem we keep seeing is that you're wanting to see these people as having agreed with you in total, when in fact there was only some degree of agreement, as even I myself agree with you partially, but the way you characterize things, almost everyone was in agreement and we just need to fall in line and agree also. The person you call out to quote (Dingo1729) went on to say "I have the choice of either sitting here repeating: "you're all wrong, you're all wrong, you're all wrong" or walking away. I think I'll walk away." -- Avanu (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dingo1729 was agreeing with you about the scope of the word "diaspora", not about the multiple different claims you have made about what the consensus was or wasn't on that CfD. That part of the sentence (which of course was perfectly clear in the diff I clearly linked to my quote) was not relevant to what I was talking about, the validity of your latest inaccurate claim that only a "few" (8 by my count out of 11 voicing a strong clear opinion) favored allowing a broad usage while "most" agreed that the word also had a narrower meaning. Of course, the word also has many narrower meanings! How would the existence of many narrower meanings for a word like "bug" entitle somebody to force other editors to restrict its usage in the article computer bug? I would welcome a broader referendum on usage if needed, but I strongly oppose what you have been doing, attacking broad use of the term by one single editor in just a few articles. Hundreds of articles already use the term in a broad sense--surely some kind of consensus is implied by that fact too, don't you think? Sharktopustalk 22:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My what a long thread this is becoming. Let me try and explain more clearly. I agree with you that diaspora can have a broad meaning. And from what you have said, it sounds like you agree that it can also have a strict or narrow meaning.
I think the issue that is causing a debate here is *when* to use the word at all, or when one uses it, what meaning are they intending? Griswaldo was trying to make a point earlier in another article about how far can the expanded definition be taken before it loses any meaning.
For example, are we (all of humanity) part of "the African diaspora", "an African diaspora", or has it simply been too long for that to really to be a useful description in most situations?
When a cattle rancher lets the cows out into a 10,000 acre Texas ranch, is that a diaspora?
When a single person or their family escapes from Cuba to land in Florida, is that a diaspora?
In other words, the older and more strict definition had more clear limits. The 'new' expanded definition seems to be fashionable for academics to use, but it is a bit like a 9-year-old kid with a theasaurus -- their essay isn't great or even stupendous, its elephantine and behemothic. You can tell when words are being used in a way they weren't intended. It might be techincally accurate, but it just isn't quite on target. That's what the more word-conservative crowd is trying to get across here. Its ok to expand our lexicon and use words in creative and new ways, in fact I love that; its part of what makes language more fun, but we're trying to create an encyclopedia here. This isn't creative writing class. And article titles in Wikipedia have some degree of restriction in order to make things easy for people to find. So any critique of this choice isn't based on a critique that we don't like the word -- its based on a need to keep things clear for the audience. So while we argue over the minutiae of where a hyphen goes or what a word means, people are looking for knowledge, and we're here working hard to make sure they get it. I hope this helps, and I hope it clears up my 2 cents on things. -- Avanu (talk) 00:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify my two cents. When I say I support a broad usage of "diaspora" I mean only that Wikipedians have a right to use the word as it is used in WP:RS. Wikipedia has many articles with titles about ethnic groups foo with titles such as "Foo emigration", "Foo emigrants", "Foo Americans", etc. The purpose of using "diaspora" in an article title is to cover those cases where one article combines a pretty broad swathe of some combination of these related categories. WP:TITLE recommends uniformity, recognizability, and brevity in article titles. "Norwegian diaspora" is one of many similar articles that describe generally foo-emigrants-and-their-descendants. See for example French diaspora, which states "The French diaspora consists of French emigrants and their descendants in countries such as the United States, Canada and Latin America." That article has had the same lead sentence since its creation in June 2009. Basque diaspora begins "The Basque diaspora is the name given to describe people of Basque origin living outside their traditional homeland on the borders between Spain and France." That article has had the same lead sentence since at least 2007. We are not talking about a contentious, audacious, new use of the word "diaspora" to title an article that is about foo emigrants and their descendants.
If the Norwegian diaspora article states very clearly in its lead that its topic is Norwegian emigrants and their descendants, how is it going to confuse readers if the article then provides information about Norwegian emigrants and their descendants? Where in Norwegian diaspora can you see anybody claiming that a diaspora is one Norwegian moving his cows or any other absurdity? The only uses of the word diaspora, outside the title and the lead sentence explaining the article scope, are in direct quotes from several cited WP:RS usages.
Using diaspora to mean "emigrants and their descendants" does not require that we allow people to use "diaspora" as if it meant "a glass of orange juice." If your claim is that Wikipedia should not use diaspora to mean "emigrants and their descendants," please explain why we should change a long-standing usage that is a multiply evident usage in WP:RS as well as in here. And don't you think you should seek a wider consensus before embarking on an ambitious refactoring of many long-established pages?Sharktopustalk 01:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I like your descriptions above, very apt and to the point. I'm glad see that you also see a need for some level of restraint in the use of the word. I have to say that makes me super happy. As long as we're in that level of agreement, even if there is still some room for leeway, I feel that you will be a good caretaker for these sorts of articles. In other words, that minor level of restraint is enough to win me over. -- Avanu (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am glad you suggested writing essays, since we ended up understanding each other better. I agree with you that Wikipedia articles are no place for creative inventors of new usages, but now I see that's what it sounded like to you when I talked about "broad usage." We need to get our information and tools from WP:RS. Sharktopustalk 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List guidelines[edit]

Since this article was created, it was modified to become a Set-Index Article/list. As such, I have gone back to look up the guidelines for Set-Index Articles and lists in Wikipedia. (Avanu (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SIA#Set_index_articles

  • A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. For example, Dodge Charger describes a set of cars, List of peaks named Signal Mountain describes a set of mountain peaks, and USS Enterprise describes a set of ships.
  • A set index article is not a disambiguation page: A disambiguation page is a list of different types of things that share the same (or similar) name. A set index need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages; however many do by convention....
  • Fundamentally, a set index article is a type of list article. The criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list. The style of a set index article should follow the style guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. A set index article can be tagged with ((SIA)).

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists

  • Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.
  • The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists. Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value.... Lists that are too specific are also a problem.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Listcruft

  • In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article.


Diaspora and "Semantic shift"[edit]

My how things can come into a confluence...

I was looking at the front page of Wikipedia a moment ago and the "Did you know..." section had this to say:

... that although Shishman, a medieval ruler of Vidin, Bulgaria (pictured), was hailed by his contemporaries as a prince, king and even emperor, his only official title was that of despot?

This intrigued me, so I went to the article and discovered that 'despot' has undergone a 'semantic shift'. It was once a positive title analogous to 'lord'. So after discovering this, I plugged "diaspora and 'semantic shift'" into Google. This led me to Highland homecomings: genealogy and heritage tourism in the Scottish diaspora by Paul Basu. I'll quote (and I realize this is a lot):

Homeland and diaspora
This brings us to a second metaphor of modern identity, one which embraces the 'dual consciousness' of stasis/movement, past/present, home/away: the notion of 'diaspora'. 'Diaspora cultures', suggests James Clifford, 'mediate, in a lived tension, the experiences of separation and entanglement, of living here and remembering/desiring another place' (1997: 255).
Indeed, I would argue that diaspora should be considered as only one half of a twin trope with that 'other landscape', the 'homeland'. Like the global and the local, these are relative terms, each constituted in the other, such that there can be no diaspora without an implied place of origin (real or imagined), no homeland without an implied sense of displacement.
In recent years, diaspora has become something of a buzzword across the social sciences, used to describe almost any dispersed population regardless of the circumstances of its dispersal: 'where once were dispersions', bemoans Khachig Tölöyan, 'there now is diaspora' (1996: 30).
Tölöyan maintains that, despite its more neutral etymological roots, a semantic stability had prevailed around the term from the second century CE until the late 1960s, based on what he describes as the 'Jewish paradigm' (1996: 13). This 'paradigmatic diaspora' is characterized primarily by the coercive nature of the forces resulting in the uprooting and resettlement of a population outside the boundaries of its established homeland.
Diaspora, thus defined, may therefore be 'juxtaposed to the voluntary and cumulative emigration of individuals or small groups, which can also result in the formation of dispersion and enclaves in host countries' (ibid.: 12). Accordingly, Tölöyan argues, as well as the Jewish Diaspora, one can legitimately identify, for example, African and Armenian diasporas by the unequivocality of their respective cultural traumas, whereas to contemplate an Indian diaspora, for instance, formed by the migration of indentured labourers, or a British diaspora, formed by colonisation and voluntary emigration, requires a fundamental semantic shift -- a problemative shift in which the meaning and power of the word itself becomes diffuse.
Despite Tölöyan's protestations, it appears that diaspora has indeed become a 'promiscuously capacious category' (1996: 8). 'For better or worse', writes Clifford, 'diaspora discourse is being widely appropriated' and 'is loose in the world' (1997: 249), where it joins an 'unruly crowd of descriptive/interpretive terms [that] now jostle and converse in an effort to characterize the contact zones of nations, cultures and regions' (ibid.: 245). -- Avanu (talk) 04:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the author also posts a list of 'Common features of a diaspora', which might help in future diaspora debates. -- Avanu (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion guidelines[edit]

There is a list of appropriate reasons to delete at WP:DEL#REASON.

Consider also the following advice from WP:JNN:

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability.

We also have a list of policies to cite in deletion debates here: WP:PGL.Sharktopustalk 16:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Scandinavian diaspora' is original research unless we have sources to back it up, and if we have sources for 'Scandinavian diaspora', then it seems that it should have a real article, not simply a list (which is also the recommended practice for SIA/Lists). -- Avanu (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Diaspora definitions[edit]

Diaspora Scholarship

"Diaspora communities are characterized—perhaps uniquely—by their movement."

"The movement which gives a diaspora its genesis can be understood by the degree of autonomy a community of individuals exercises in the choice of when and where to move,[3] the acuteness of the break, and the sense of urgency attached to return to the ancestral home. A narrative created through conquest, slavery, or genocide will sound and feel quite different from a narrative of displacement (i.e., the social construction of a home away from home[4]) in which the pull toward the new is greater than the push from the old. Regardless, the “idealized image of home as a paradise they were forced to flee” guides both narratives, engendering feelings of solitude, estrangement, loss and longing."

"Diaspora groups ... must carefully manage their communicative negotiations of their ethnic and national identities in relationship to the homeland as well as the place of settlement. That is, they must present themselves as authentic diasporic and national subjects by creatively connecting their politics in both places so that they are not perceived as disloyal or inauthentic to either."


I would think in articles that have 'diaspora' in the title, there would need to be some adherence to these types of definitions or they would not be valid diasporas. -- Avanu (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Mojang AB. Jujutacular talk 15:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Bergensten[edit]

Jens Bergensten (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 lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why would we merge a nn individual that fails WP:BIO to an article? ttonyb (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the information is still verifiable? Notability is for article topics. Marasmusine (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Mandsford 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bader[edit]

Adam Bader (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Of its four refs, two contain nothing of any pertinence, one is subject's blog, another of questionable notability. Doddy Wuid (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 29 March 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. Withdrawn joe deckertalk to me 21:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard T. Warner[edit]

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

Always hard to tell with names as common as Richard Warner, particularly with alternative spellings, but I don't really see anything save the photo credit I added as the article's first source, to suggest notability under the GNG for this businessperson. Additional sources are of course welcomed. Tagged unsourced/non-notable for 2+ years. joe deckertalk to me 21:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn. I found a bit more, will resubmit after a more thorough search if necessary.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 opinions mostly consist of WP:WAX or WP:NOTINHERITED arguments. Jujutacular talk 03:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Friesen[edit]

Justin Friesen (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 lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article also lacks adequate reliable secondary sources. Article fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per the Secondary Sources - are official Government and United Nations articles not reliable?? Yohowithrum (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – 1. I am not sure what you mean by, "...does not have "new" GHits and GNEWS info due to the work taking place in 2002." There is plenty of pre-2002 material on Google. Google does not only index material related to post-2002 events or items. If there are references to support the article the date is not relevant; however, their meeting WP:RS is a requirement for their use. 2. The nomination is not an subjective opinion, it is an application of the criteria in WP:BIO and the lack of "non-trivial" reliable sources to support the article. In addition, the article you point to as reliable reliable sources are "non-trivial" in nature, they only reference the subject of the article in passing. ttonyb (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There are a number of articles that probably need to be deleted for lack of references; however, that article has no bearing on this AfD.See WP:WAX for more detail. The point of nominating this article for deletion is it fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have nominated Will Bowes for deletion as I agree it does not meet notability standards either. SeaphotoTalk 02:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has a bearing if it is an example of the randomness of your deletion method. You just saw it as a new article and that it is a biography, and then slapped the deletion on it. Will Bowes' article survived just due to the fact that you didn't slap a deletion on it in 2007 when it was created. It seems so pointless to delete articles. I come onto WikiPedia to add and edit, I never saw anything wrong with adding a new page to contribute to this beautiful online encyclopedia. Yohowithrum (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hairhorn - Is a speech delivered to a UN General Assembly, which has been included in the official reports of the UN non-notable? http://books.google.com/books?id=ofOwJY3WNzcC&pg=PA111&dq=%22Justin+Friesen%22&hl=en&ei=Z96PTZatA4_EgAeLn9jKAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=%22Justin%20Friesen%22&f=false Yohowithrum (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:notability. Notability is based on coverage, not on a list of accomplishments. Hairhorn (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 2020 Summer Olympics. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Busan bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics[edit]

Busan bid for the 2020 Summer Olympics (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 a offical bid, has hardly any sources etc as well it is a crystal ball. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TaaaS[edit]

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

Neologism with no evidence that it is used or notable. Sgroupace (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page." by Selket (talk · contribs) — non-admin closure Monty845 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost great.[edit]

Almost great. (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 product. The author contested a proposed, endorsed deletion without naming a reason and without addressing the problems of this article. De728631 (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this page was created as a means for people seeing this sticker around new york and who were interested in it to learn more about it's origins, influences, and how many are circulating around new york state. I'm pretty new to contributing to wikipedia, if it gets deleted it gets deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookyourphoto (talk • contribs) 17:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Deletion rationale has been shown to be wrong, no delete !votes (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Opportunities Programme[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. I am unable to find significant coverage of this programme in third party sources. Onthegogo (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you have a specific example of a relevant source that you might be shared with the rest of us? Onthegogo (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Search "Youth Opportunities Programme" in Google. Here are some results that seem particularly useful: [8] [9] [10] [11] BurtAlert (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fiddy (ed), In Place of Work (1983) seems likely to be useful, especially Loney's "The Youth Opportunities Programme" [12]. Also relevant material in Fiddy's Youth, unemployment and training (1985) given that the YOP seems to be the baseline with which other programmes are compared and contrasted. [13] But frankly there are pages and pages of related material on Google books and Google scholar. Some obvious examples from Scholar which specifically address the YOP: "The impact of the Youth Opportunities Programme on young people's employment prospects and psychological well-being"; "School-leaver unemployment and the Youth Opportunities Programme in Scotland"; "Client Responses to the Youth Opportunities Programme"; "Education, Employment and the Youth Opportunities Programme: some sociological perspectives". As for the usefulness of Google News Archive, unsurprisingly that is low to zero for the relevant period. Google would have us believe that the Guardian never mentioned the phrase. An unlikely story. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 29 March 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Church 2011[edit]

Church 2011 (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:NOTNEWS, basically. While sourcing to several newspapers in two countries has been offered, there's no indication that this memo has long-term notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i live in Germany. The memorandum has in Germany, Austria and Switzerland a high importance and you can read over it in each german, austrian, swiss newspapers. Around half of all german, austrian and swiss catholic theology professor signed that memorandum. So a strong KEEP from Germany. 92.252.80.144 (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — 92.252.80.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

strong Keep also from Spain and many spanish speaking countries in Latinamerica now catholic professors signed that memorandum Church 2011. The counter memorandum was not very important (under ten catholic theology professors signedt that opponent memorandum and had no support under catholic german, swiss and austrian theology professors). So the reform memorandum with now over 300 catholic theology professors, who signed that memorandum, has a high importance and is in german media still very successfull. 92.252.102.93 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the 300 subscribers are professors. In fact in Germany of 250 subscribers only 104 were professors (of ca. 400 catholic professors at all). 40% of the signing professors were already retired. No young professor signed. Moreover the memorandum wants to be a contribution to a dialogue process started by the German bishops. It deals with the situation in Germany. Trying to "transform" the memorandum in a sort of worldwide "upshake", etc. might even further diminish its impacts. After three days of attention after the release of the memorandum, the medias rested silent over the subject. Perhaps this is a simple sign of the decreasing importance of religious debates in Europe and especially in Germany. We will see. 178.0.172.238 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and i have to say, the article Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience is not so important than an article over memorandum Church 2011. That Manhattan Declaration knows noone in whole Germany, Swiss or Austria. Memorandum Church 2011 know thousands of German, Austrian, Swiss people and also in Spain and spanish speaking coutries that memorandum has success. So Manhattan Declaration is only a declaration for the United States, but Church 2011 is a declaration for many countries like Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, ... 92.252.102.93 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, it is irrelevant whether the Manhattan Declaration article should remain or not. That is the topic for a different discussion. The topic of this discussion is the Church 2011 declaration, which needs more time before its notability and long term historic effect can be gauged. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:44, 8 March 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, Logan Talk Contributions 03:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article can be deleted. It is an interesting fact, but there is no more discussion (or even editing) about it. There was a little fire in the press followed by the voting campaigns in the internet. But now, after the reception of the memorandum by the german bischops, there are no more reactions at all. Perhaps this article can be incubated to look for the further development. At the moment there is no relevance and the article in its present form is not very helpful at all. 194.76.232.207 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so the list had a great and strong impact on discussions in catholic church. More than Manhattan Declaration, which noone knows outside US. In autumn Benedikt XVI. will travvel to Germany and then the discussion will be harder and very strong in German media. So always a strong keep from me. 92.252.78.159 (talk) 23:25, 16 March 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, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was only a short spark. There is no more discussion. Article should be incubated. After the Pope's visit to germany we will see, wether there is any relevance or not. 178.0.172.238 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 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. Lack of evidence showing significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular talk 03:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James McCarthy (footballer born 1983)[edit]

James McCarthy (footballer born 1983) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a footballer who has not played in a fully professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, failing WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My goal is to have an article about me, but it isn't going to happen because I'm not notable. the burden is on you to prove notability - can you do this? As you openly admit, this player fails WP:NFOOTBALL as well as WP:GNG, and isn't worthy of an article IMO. GiantSnowman 18:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you become a player in the League of Ireland maybe someone will create one about you. WP:GNG: There are reliable, independent, secondary sources cited in his article. WP:NFOOTBALL: He has played at the top level of Irish football. Hsetne (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GNG - no, they are either profiles or run-of-the-mill sports reports, which fails WP:NTEMP. NFOOTBALL - nope, doesn't mention "top level" football as being notable - it mentions "fully-professional league", which you have admitted the LoI isn't. Sorry. GiantSnowman 18:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Run-of-the-mill sports reports? Do you want me to cite a cover story in Time magazine? NFOOTBALL links here to pro leagues and top level leagues which are not fully professional. There should (and appears to be) exceptions for countries whose top level of football isn't fully pro, we're dealing with a national league that gets coverage in the national media. WikiProject Irish Football is to "Create an article on every League of Ireland player", going along with that project. Hsetne (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
McCarthy was on the front cover of Time magazine? Impressive. Any evidence? Individual WikiProjects do not have jurisdiction over the rest of Wikipedia. A WP could get created, its members could reach consensus on any ridiculous aims - "This WikiProject aims to write biographies about a family of imaginary clowns that live in my fridge" - but that does not mean it's viable with the wider rules on Wikipedia, does it? GiantSnowman 18:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have to say about the rest of my response? i.e. NFOOTBALL links here to pro leagues and top level leagues which are not fully professional. There should (and appears to be) exceptions for countries whose top level of football isn't fully pro, we're dealing with a national league that gets coverage in the national media. --Hsetne (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Top level leagues which are not fully professional lists leagues purely to halt any "this player plays in the highest league in his country" arguments. Are you going to allow articles on players in top-level leagues in San Marino, Dijibouti or Guam? They will all be "a national league that gets coverage in the national media" - but it does not mean that such players are actually notable, does it? GiantSnowman 19:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly interested in the top-level leagues in San Marino, Djibouti or Guam. I have no idea of the profile of these leagues or the players in those countries, do you? I also don't see Djibouti or Guam in the list, and San Marino is much further down the coefficient rankings than the League of Ireland. I'd actually question some of the leagues that are listed as fully pro, but that's not for here. Are you going to delete the majority of League of Ireland players, and IFA Premiership players, etc. from wikipedia? Players in these leagues are notable. There are players on wiki who've played in fully pro leagues, but are notable because of their time in Irish football. Hsetne (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're admitting bias in favour of Irish players then? Even though both Ireland and San Marino are "top level national leagues", you're basically one set of people deserve articles but the other don't? Interesting. Players in Ireland are not notable, as the number of recent successful AfDs shows. Me & thee are never going to agree on this, so let's leave it be and let others have a say in this disussion. GiantSnowman 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bias? Have a look at the UEFA coefficients ranking football leagues. You've been trying to put words into my mouth but it's not working for you. Ireland is actually ranked just below Finland, which wiki says is fully pro and allowed to have player articles. San Marino on the other hand is way down the list with a much, much lower coefficient. I've proposed a number of recent, successful, deletion of Irish footballers, which were deleted on the basis of notability, I've probably done more than most on here regarding this. Players in Ireland are notable. Just because there have been some deleted, some of which I proposed myself, doesn't mean that they all should be. --Hsetne (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does the UEFA coefficients have to do with accepted guidelines on Wikipedia? The only League of Ireland players who should have an article are those that are either playing in a fully professional league now or have done in the past. The only player in Cork City's current squad that meets the criteria here is Danny Murphy because he has played in the Football League for Queens Park Rangers and in the Scottish Premier League for Motherwell. Shane Duggan's article was deleted because he isn't notable either. He was a youth team player with my club but never made the first team and certainly didn't play in the Football League. Whereas Rory Patterson has had an article for years, despite playing in English non-league football and the IFA Premiership because he played in a fully professional league for Rochdale. Otherwise he wouldn't have been eligible for one until 2010, when he made his debut for the Northern Ireland national team. Even if notability guidelines were relaxed even more so that any top division player was classed as notable, Peter Krzanowski and many others would still fall short. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I brought in UEFA coefficients to show the level of the league, it made sense to bring it into discussion when someone is comparing the league to those in San Marino, etc. There should be an exception to the fully pro league status. Rory Patterson is more notable for playing for FCUM and in the IFA Premiership than his time at Rochdale. Why mention just Rory Patterson though? What about all the other articles about footballers who have articles but haven't played in fully pro leagues? Are you going to delete the majority of articles about players in the League of Ireland, IFA Premiership, etc., or are you just focussing on Cork City. Shane Duggan is notable, despite not playing in a fully professional league, he has played as a full-time pro, he has been named in the PFAI team of the year, he has represented Ireland at U23 level. To suggest players aren't notable because the league isn't fully pro is laughable, it's the national league and receives national coverage. --Hsetne (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any player that has an article without having played in a fully professional league does so because he has played for his national team at senior level or has been shown to meet the general notability guideline. I used Patterson as an example because without playing for Rochdale in the Football League he wouldn't have been notable for years. WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly states that; Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully-professional league (as detailed here), will generally be regarded as notable. Guidelines are there for a reason and decided on by broad consensus of the community. I am not picking on Irish football or Cork City in general. I have been involved in the deletion process of players from numerous countries and I was brought to the page by a player who was only a youth team player for my club. If you have a problem with the guidelines and want every top league in the world to grant player notability, regardless of whether it is fully professional or not, then I suggest you make the case for it at WP:NSPORT. This is the last comment I shall make on this subject. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted per "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page" by Selket (talk · contribs). — non-admin closure Monty845 19:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Orr Racing[edit]

Daniel Orr Racing (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 driver, racing predominantly in a secondary division without major results. Some of the achievements on the page (3rd in the Porsche Sports Cup, racing in the Commodore Cup) are false. The user who created the article attempted to vandalize two other articles before creating this one. --Pc13 (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to The Devil Wears Prada (film). (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Sachs[edit]

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

Very little references on a character who's importance in the film and book does not equal a seperate Wikipedia page. Either we delete or merge with The Devil Wears Prada. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:37 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 29 March 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. New evidence of notability on table, withdrawn nomination, snowball of keep votes. Dcoetzee 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Black[edit]

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

Brief history: this article was speedy deleted under criterion A7, with claims that the subject is not notable because of WP:BLP1E. The article was then put on deletion review twice. The first time it remained deleted, but the second time recreation was allowed.

I'm nominating this article for deletion again because Rebecca Black is not notable when considered independently from her event [her music video]. The primary arguments for keeping the article are WP:MUSIC and the terms in WP:BLP1E that say the person involved with the event is notable if their part in the event was significant enough. While this is a reasonable argument considering she did sing the song and she has received quite a bit of news coverage, I believe there is a degree of separation between her and the video. Many of the articles covering Rebecca Black more often are focused on her video than just her. Though it is possible she may continue to release more songs and become notable in the future, we cannot predict what she will do andat the current point in time the video is what's notable, not her. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the evidence that she will most likely be releasing more songs in the future and the overwhelming consensus to keep the article, I'm withdrawing the nomination for deletion. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I thought, but I figured I'd list it there anyway in case anybody was curious. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 15:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep or redirect to Friday (Rebecca Black song). But in no way should it be deleted. Concerns of BLP1E are valid, but considering the amount of coverage she's had due to the avalanche of negativity, she passes the general notability guideline. If BLP1E trumps the GNG, then that's fine with me, but it should (very very obviously) be left as a redirect. Or the song should redirect here. Or both to an 'incident' article. But there should be something on the page. Ergo, no delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not the way it works. Notability must be shown, not the other way around. LiteralKa (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think redirecting would be a good idea. It would be bad for the article about the song to spend large amounts of space talking about Rebecca Black the person. Sadly, she may even go on to release further music. The article should be kept around. Jam1991 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a brief comment, part of the role of BLP1E was to ensure that balanced articles can be written - the difficulty with someone known for one event is that we can only cover their biography in terms of that single event, rather than providing it with balance. By focusing on the event, rather than the person, we don't need to be so concerned with trying to give a NPOV account of their life, as our focus moves to a smaller part of it. In this case, there is nothing that is said about Black that isn't said in the Friday article, because we only know about her in relation to the song. Therefore we can't write a balanced article about her life, so it makes some sense to focus on the context that we can write about her. If things happen that mean we can write about her outside fo that context, then having two articles will make more sense. - Bilby (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "an event". And I count seven full sentences in the article that are about her, not the song per se. I don't think you are understanding NPOV correctly in this context, and the principle you are trying to assert would eliminate any article about someone notable for doing or making one thing of any kind, such as a debut novelist, debut film directors, even many one-term members of Congress who don't distinguish themselves beyond getting elected. Obviously what someone is notable for is going to dominate their article. Take Anna Paquin, for example; at the time she starred in The Piano, it was the only thing that she was notable for because it was her debut film role. So had Wikipedia existed in 1993, we should not have had an article about her, because everything would have focused on that Academy Award-winning role? If producing and releasing a single song that brings you fame is an "event", why wouldn't starring in one film that brings you fame? It simply isn't a constructive, workable, or meaningful standard. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is incredibly unlikely that the article will be deleted, and I was aware of this from the outset. But my point, I guess, is that those seven sentences you note in the article about her are also almost all in the article about the song. So from my perspective, currently we have an article about Rebecca Black, describing her only in terms of having recorded what some critics regard as the worst song ever (based on the lead), and we have an article about the song described as being what some critics regard as the worst song ever, performed by Rebecca Black. Both articles are predominatly about Rebecca Black and the song, and both articles cover the same material - although the song article actually provides better context than the article about her does. We can keep both, or keep only one. Either way the content would be kept. But one article focuses on the song (and yes, describing it as an event isn't quite right), putting the individual in the context of the song in much the same way as 1E encourages us to describe an event and place the indvidual within that context, while the other defines the person in the context of the song rather than giving a broader perspective, and this seems problematic when there is, at this point in time, no possibility of describing her in her own right.
At any rate I'll let it sit. I wanted to raise an alternative perspective given the way we have two articles covered the same material, but consensus will probably go elsewhere. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this star is 13 years of age and known for one song, not played on the radio but only on youtube. dont feed the cashcow that is her producer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.98.227.182 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did I stutter? Yes, seriously. Sometimes common sense should prevail over rules, that is why we have last-resort measures like WP:IAR in place. I am far too much of a pessimist to expect anyone to actually decide this case that way though, hence the "token" in my !vote. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Way to take on a hostile tone with somebody who disagrees. From reading your user page, you come across to me as a genuinely unpleasant person. — Stimpy talk 22:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unpleasant when people don't consider that having a Wikipedia entry for a 13 yr old youtube "sensation" might not be such a good idea. I prefer unpleasant to unthinking. Tarc (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea (and one that follows policy), to have article on charting musical artistes that meet notability requirements. Their age and/or artistic merit of their output is irrelevant. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You completely missed the point. Good job. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please Tarc, behave yourself. Comments like the ones above from you are unnecessary to say the least and doesnt help your cause. As you are a user that often ask for more explanations you shouldnt react with hatered because someone ask you too for a better explanation.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MUSICBIO clearly states 2.Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart... Rebecca Black passes MUSICBIO many times around on this point.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Community college students are a core constituency of Wikipedia, and it is perfectly legitimate to poll them as to what is notable, but not what is not notable. (2) I found, very easily and within minutes four reliable sources: Dail;y Mail, Blackbook Magazine, [Yahoo News, and Slate.com. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. I fully expect her to be releasing more music (sadly) and I feel like this page will only come back if deleted.Jam1991 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps also keep the page protected to stop it being recreated in the event of a redirect or delete. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is talk that she may be releasing a new song/album. Since this is likely, it seems like it would be in the best interest to keep the article active.Jam1991 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's meant to be a recommendation please format it as such. Thanks! TJ Black (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.209.241 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 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, as Iowa Masonic Library and Museum. postdlf (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of Iowa building[edit]

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

No indication that the subject is notable. Searching google (standard search, books and news) shows that there are no reliable sources that are independent of the subject that discuss this building (note: there are lots of sources that discuss the Grand Lodge of Iowa as an organization... but none that I can find that discuss this building). To justify having an article on this building, we need someone other than the body that built it to have commented on it. Article seems to have been created purely in order to bluelink (and hence justify) inclusion in a list article on notable Masonic buildings. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFDs include List of Masonic buildings AFD, Masonic Temple Lahore AFD, Sons of Haiti AFD. Many other items of dispute at Talk:List of Masonic buildings about whether individual items could be kept there, now almost all of which are kept and further have articles. --doncram 21:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those AfDs aren't particularly related, and WP:OSE is an argument to avoid. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are totally related, as being articles on Masonic buildings or Masonic groups which were started or developed by me, not-a-Mason, which deletion-nominator and other self-identified Masonic editors seemed to kneejerk oppose. Masonic editors seem to kneejerk oppose anything a non-Masonic-editor does that touches on their turf. This is one more in a long series of objections by Masonic editors seemingly unfamiliar with Wikipedia practice and policies on historic buildings articles, on how disambiguation is done in Wikipedia, and on other basic topics. There are dozens of such objections, many documented in six(!) archives of Talk:List of Masonic buildings, all or virtually all of which led to the Masonic editors being over-ruled. I think it is highly relevant to point out to other editors that the deletion nominator has a long history of inappropriate deletion nominations and opposition to practically every development. It seems a case of crying wolf, many times over.
Also, OSE does not apply. There is no question that those other articles are fine, as found by consensus of editors. Or if you want to dispute any of those others, go ahead and start new AFDs. You will lose those AFDs, too. --doncram 16:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some references, including documenting that it is a museum and/or holds 4 different museum collections and is open to the public. It is also a contributing building in a cultural district. It's notable just for being a museum, alone. Adding category tags for that, too. --doncram 20:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source RifeIdeas points us to is the Grand Lodge of Iowa website, ie the organization that built and owns the building... of course that organization thinks its own building is important... However, our WP:Notability guidelines require that we establish notability through reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, we need sources that are not connected to the Grand Lodge of Iowa. And since the article subject is the building... the sources need to discuss the building; not the masonic bodies, libraries, museums or other things that meet or rent space in the building (per: notability is not inherited).
As a comparison... if you search [google, google news], and [google books] for sources on "Masonic Hall" in New York City (the Grand Lodge of New York's building) you get a LOT of potential sources.... with the Iowa building you get hardly anything at all. Blueboar (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Blueboar (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is an obviously acceptable Wikipedia article now, with 9 references and notability as a building with architectural distinction and history, as a library, as a museum. Blueboar, please withdraw your deletion nomination, and then discuss at the Talk page to which name the article should be moved, perhaps "Iowa Masonic Library and Museum" or one still reflecting "Grand Lodge of Iowa", for a more formal name of the building and institution combined. This AFD is not needed; some more development of info and fine-tuning of presentation is all that is needed, and should take place at Talk page. --doncram 02:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the new sources are about things other than the building itself. Notability is not inherited. What I could see is the creation of an article on the Grand Lodge of Iowa that included a short section on the building (ie I could support a merge). But even with your additional sources, I don't think the building itself is notable enough for a stand alone article. Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first library that it replaced was the only Masonic library in its own building, in the world, per New York Times obituary of Parvin, its builder and longtime head of the Grand Lodge of Iowa. The current library building is a fine building, on its own (have you looked at pictures?) and is notable as a building and as a library, with perhaps the largest Masonic library collection in the world. The article can be a "combo" about the library as a building-based institution and its two buildings, but I am not personally interested in this getting dragged into a more amorphous topic of the Grand Lodge as a group with no place / substance / whatever. You can start an article about the Grand Lodge (which i don't think you want to do). But the article about the building and its building-based institution is gonna stay, frankly. We can just let the AFD process run, I suppose. I'm disappointed. I thought hair-trigger AFD noms with no prior discussion were no longer the M.O. --doncram 02:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified that nominator nominated the article for deletion 19 minutes after it was created.  Detail is posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Grand Lodge of Iowa building.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, sorry the 3 Cedar Rapids Gazette articles are not conveniently on line for you. Are you disbelieving them? Email me and I will send you PDF files of them.
I added cryptic mention of a circa 1910 New York Times obit with some info about the predecessor library, will complete that out later.
The article is like most museum and library articles in that it uses information from the museum/library's official websites. Is there anything factual at all asserted in the article that you disbelieve? So what if there is some puffery in the institutions own claims, which are quoted. Do you disbelieve that their assertions are their assertions? I believe the facts of the size of the building and that it is made of marble, etc. Seriously, what does anyone disbelieve here? --doncram 12:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Doncram, you're not at all a rookie, and you can't pretend not to know that a subject's own website cannot be used in support of its own notability. No one is challenging whether they have a clear handle on the size and composition of their own building, but that was never the point. As far as the Gazette articles, I'm more than happy to e-mail you for PDFs and will do that, but what concerns me is in not finding any trace of the articles ... not behind pay walls, not under any Google News archive, nowhere. I can get better results from my hometown weekly, not for articles published as recently as last fall in the paper of record for a metro area of nearly half a million.  Ravenswing  20:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The new title does seem more accurate, but the move does not resolve the the underlying problem ... we still don't have independent secondary sources that discuss the building. Blueboar (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it the building that must be notable, or the contents, such as the museum exhibits and the library, that must be notable, or the organization, or all three? This question arises often when discussing a building, an organization, and the organization's museum exhibits and books, three different aspects covered in a single article. It seems to me in this article that the organization and the museum exhibits are far more notable than the building itself, so discussing the building is not the important issue. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer is either of the first two: it's got to be notable as a building or the museum and library it contains must be notable (or both of course, but we wouldn't usually produce separate articles about the building and its contents). Just because an organisation is notable doesn't mean its buildings are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Iowa Masonic Library and Museum[edit]
Comment by nominator... The focus of the article is slowly shifting, When I nominated the article for deletion, it was an article about a non-notable building. However, it is turning into an article about something else... a somewhat notable institution (the library and museum). That shift in focus is making me re-evaluate my nomination. I still maintain that the best place to discuss this topic would be as part of an article on the Grand Lodge of Iowa and not as a stand alone article... but that can be discussed on the article talk page. If this shift in focus from building to institution continues, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that's still no justification for nominating it so soon after creation. Articles should always be given a chance to grow and perfectly decent references should not be removed for spurious reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Necrothesp, I disagree. At the time he nominated it, it read, in full, "The Grand Lodge of Iowa building in Cedar Rapids, Iowa is a building whose dedication was asserted to be the most important event in Iowa masonry during the 20th century. It was built in 1955.", with the only reference being to the Grand Lodge itself and no templates indicating that work was ongoing. Blueboar was not out of line to nominate it, in my opinion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Sarek. It was indeed the assertion that the dedication of the building was "the most important event" that caused me to remove. That assertion needed an independent reliable source.
I think my nomination has been justified by what has already occurred. You could say that the article I nominated has already been deleted. We no longer have an article about a non-notable building. We have a different article about a (somewhat) notable institution (the library and museum). Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is BUNK or worse. The assertion that the dedication had been asserted to be "the most important event" was supported by the reference that deletion nominator removed from the article, before opening AFD at time 19 minutes. That quote and reference was also available in List of Masonic buildings article, where deletion nominator had edited recently (and had seen the quote and its reference removed and restored recently there before). The AFD deletion was not justified at all. Why not add a notability tag and discuss at Talk? --doncram 14:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19 minutes Sarek! We cannot have articles nominated so quickly. Stubs are perfectly viable under Wikipedia guidelines. I agree it wasn't a great article as it stood (and the assertion you mention was indeed POV), but that is hardly the point. No templates are necessary to indicate that the article is being worked on - it simply should have been given a little more time before AfD was initiated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I generally agree with you that people are too trigger-happy here, I've often seen articles nominated (and deleted) for A7-speedies at far less than 19 minutes. This isn't the appropriate place to be discussing this, as it's a long-term problem with an unclear solution.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, I understand what you are saying, but you are missing some context... yes, as a stand alone page, this article had only been in place for 19 minutes when I nominated it... however, the question of whether the building is notable had been raised at List of Masonic buildings prior to creation of the stand alone article... I had been looking for sources on this building well before Doncram created the stand alone article, and had not found any. I don't think this qualifies as being "trigger-happy". --Blueboar
That's a mischaracterization about the issue being raised. It was not raised at the Talk page. MSJapan and Blueboar both deleted or removed the building or the I-think-interesting assertion about it being "most important" in view of some, from the list there. It was wrong to delete it. I restored it and took the issue forward by beginning to develop an article. They were clearly wrong, there, in terms of applying reasoning about article notability rather than different policy for list-item inclusion there already. I wanted to avoid that discussion there. It is clear enough now that the item is in fact article-notable, so obviously it is list-item-notable. They were also clearly wrong, IMO, in misunderstanding that a big self-serving claim can be interesting and factual. It is factual and sourced that the claim of "most important" was asserted. And, what do they think was a more important event for Iowa Freemasons during the 20th century, anyhow? --doncram 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: It appears that Doncram (the article creator) objects to the shift in focus... So it will be helpful if we can get a consensus to help us move forward. Should this article focus on the institution (the library and museum) or should focus on the building? Before we can settle the question of whether the topic is notable or not, I think we need a consensus as to what the topic actually is. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted changes by Blueboar and by SarekOfVulcan at the article, which recharacterize the topic. I consider theirs to be unfriendly changes, as if to support their original nomination and Delete votes as having been reasonable, when they were not IMO. I also object to mischaracterization of what i have wanted here. I added most of the info in the article now about the museum and library aspects of the article; i am not objecting to that. I do think the topic is notable as a building as well. That is not as well supported yet, but the remedy is not to rip it out. The editor(s) who could not find any info at all before, should not be the ones to judge that info will never be forthcoming on the topic of the building. In fact there is plenty of info about the building available. And there's probably more about the architecture of this $1,000,000-in-1955 marble-clad building to find. A topic is notable if it is likely that sources will be found; just because you don't know about them, have not found them, have not looked for them, just like you could not find anything before, does not mean you get to rip it all out of an article.
I am pretty sick and tired of battling with the Masonic editors (B and V and MSJapan) about everything touching on Freemasonry. Give me some credit for my experience identifying notable topics. Kneejerk battling by the Masonic editors has cost me and other Wikipedia editors hundreds and hundreds of hours in useless AFDs and hundreds of thousands of bytes of wasted discussion, largely in the Talk page archives of Talk:List of Masonic buildings but also scattered across various wp:V, wp:N, wp:3RR, wp:ANI and other discussion boards and many other Talk pages.
What I wrote before, is this is notable as a building with architectural distinction and history, as a library, as a museum. Blueboar, please withdraw your deletion nomination, and then discuss at the Talk page to which name the article should be moved, perhaps "Iowa Masonic Library and Museum" or one still reflecting "Grand Lodge of Iowa", for a more formal name of the building and institution combined. This AFD is not needed; some more development of info and fine-tuning of presentation is all that is needed, and should take place at Talk page. Should i keep repeating that? --doncram 17:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would not need to battle with the "Masonic editors" if you gave us some credit for our experience and knowledge of our subject (instead of always taking the stance that "I'm right and they are wrong"). Should I continue to repeat that I am happy to withdraw the nomination if the article is focused on the (somewhat notable) institution and not the (non-notable) building? Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Doncram, we're still waiting for your first edit on the talkpage. And I'd really like to know how retouching a photograph is supporting a withdrawn delete vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What am I supposed to do if you are always wrong? Seriously. But, i have in fact devoted many hours to arranging a massive (25,000+ edits) change to a National Register-related footnote, on behalf of Blueboar who had a valid point to make on that, and I do not unilaterally otherwise dismiss everything. Sorry there was some beneficial edits by you, Sarek, in what i reverted; the main point is that you are recharacterizing the article to be not-about-the-building while this AFD is going on. I think the building is notable, and I don't want the AFD to be characterized later, as disallowing anything about the building.
Note to others: SarekOfVulcan has now opened an ANI report about this, great (at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unfriendly reverts. But, I can't spend more time on this today in either forum, sorry. --doncram 17:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Doncram in not wanting this AfD to be characterized later as in some way "disallowing anything about the building". That was never my intention. I have no problem with including a discussion of the building within an article focused on the institution. The issue has never been "do we mention the building", but whether the building should be the primary focus of the article. The question is: Should this be a) an article focused on an institution (and mentioning the building that institution is in) or b) an article focused on a building (and mentioning the institutions that are in it)? I think it should be the first option, while Doncram seems to favor the second. What do others think? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet seems to be commenting regarding the recent/current version of the article, which has been slanted by SarekOfVulcan's edits which i reverted but which Blueboar restored, to focus upon the library first, then museum, then building, i.e. have edited it to be not-about-the-building. The building was expensive in its day and is striking and substantial. I am pretty sure that architectural guidebooks and other sources do have coverage of the building, that there are other sources, i just don't happen to have them yet. Reasonable people should agree (i can't make you agree though) that such sources would be forthcoming eventually, and that an article about the building alone, even, should be kept. I object to the deletion-nominator and another Masonic editor, who have worked together before, working together now to change the focus of the article that they were themselves nominating for deletion, while the AFD is in progress. I think they should stay out of the article while the AFD is in process. I am not particularly motivated to have a lot of discussion with them at the Talk page of the article either though. Battling for deletion and battling within the article for petty changes (repeatedly deleting an innocuous link to the similar Masonic library in Massachusetts: Why do that?!!!?) are not great ways to build rapport with an article creator and its main developer, about actually positively editing and developing the article. Way to go, if your purpose is to alienate and make Wikipedia unpleasant.
By the way I further think it is petty for Blueboar to withhold his agreement here, that the article should be kept, as if his withholding agreement gives him tactical advantage in further arguing about focus of the article. The AFD just applies to the question: should the article be kept? The decision here is obviously Keep though for the combo of building and library and museums, so, whatever. I likely will not comment further, the outcome of the AFD is clear. --doncram 20:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you get no special consideration for being an article creator, or a "main developer" of it. Nobody here needs to help you decide why you care to contribute to Wikipedia. Clearly, you have your reasons, strong ones that impel you to build the encyclopedia, but crying about the failure of others to kowtow to your view is not going to help anything. You put your words out to the world, and you must abide by those tiny little words down at the bottom of the edit window: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Wikipedia is as unpleasant as you choose to make it; no more. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "similar Masonic library", which is why I deleted it. I've been there. Do you have personal experience outweighing mine, or a source that explicitly calls them similar? (Mentioning they're both Masonic museums/libraries doesn't count.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must reply here to say that I received an email from you on Mon, Mar 28, 2011 timestamped around 5 pm, and that I replied by return email with 3 PDFs at 5:24, and one more email with another PDF somewhat later. You should have them. I mentioned further above that I had sent them to you, and you did not disagree. Check your email account. Email me again giving me alternative email account (maybe yours does not accept attachments?) and otherwise continue off-line discussion or post to my Talk page if you still can't find them. --doncram 01:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RG, do you have an opinion on the institution vs building question? Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that there's no notability for the bricks and mortar separate from that of the institution. If the museum is notable enough to sustain an article, sure. But separate articles for the museum AND the building it's in? Nonsense.  Ravenswing  00:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proposal by anyone to split the article into two or more, never was. It's a moot question, whether the building alone, if it had turned out that library and museum info had not been so easily developed and referenced, would on its own be wikipedia-notable. Who cares, the combo is clearly notable, always was. I have nothing further that is pleasant to say, except maybe to thank the editors who did participate constructively here. Thanks you to those editors. Adios. --doncram 01:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's essentially just a question of waiting a few days for the process to play out and then closing? I can live with that.
BTW, whoever does close this... please note the title change in your closing comments. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is still open, I would like to ask that the closer please simply close the AFD, or close it with stipulation that deletion nominator's requests and claims regarding name of article are moot. Please do not accept any stipulation by deletion nominator that there are any limits on the article. The consensus of the community is that the article topic is valid, as it always was (under any name).
I didn't mind, in fact appreciated, the article move during the AFD process, which moved to a name that I had put in bold in the article. However, I object to the editing during the course of the AFD by deletion nominator and another one or two self-identified Masonic editors, to change the article to minimize the discussion of the building, as if to defend the rightness of their opposition to the topic (which always could and would have included coverage of the library and museums, which happen to be more easily documented to their satisfaction). Deletion nominator has been playing a somewhat irritating game of withholding his agreement upon keeping this article, and then eventually agreeing it should be kept but with attempts to make stipulations. And making supposedly clarifying stipulations at the article talk page, such as this statement by Blueboar there. I don't give a crock what stipulations the deletion nominator wants. Please clarify the AFD, as proposed, is rejected by the community. To the closer, further clarify, if you wish, that deletion nominator's intended stipulations have no bearing on anything now or in the future.
Further note to deletion nominator: please do go ahead and withdraw your agreement to Keep this article, if you can't have your stipulations. The consensus is clear, without your agreement being needed at all. Thanks. --doncram 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a clear consensus to keep... where we need clarification from the closer is on what we are keeping. In essence the renaming of this article opened new issues... the AFD discussion has shifted from Article for deletion to Article for discussion. Blueboar (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With further discussion, Sarek or Don, plz close at the appropiate time. Thks. LanceBarber (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both Doncram and I have also given our opinions in this AfD, so it wouldn't be appropriate for either of us to close it. When it has run for seven days, an uninvolved admin will come along and take care of things. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raahim Khizer Ali[edit]

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

Bio of non-notable musician with no independent sources. Has been speedy deleted three times in as many days, but keeps being recreated. Latest effort was tagged for WP:PROD. Putting to AFD to firmly establish whether community considers this subject notable. If he isn't (and I think he isn't), the article may need to be salted if recreation continues. RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign to check article edit histories starts here.... :-p Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Mancini[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josué Árias[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cedric Mpununu[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Zlatanov[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Zaslavski[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Maradona (footballer born 1989)[edit]

Diego Maradona (footballer born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the Canadian Soccer League is not a fully professional league, according to the WP:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues list Mayumashu (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Rivers (soccer)[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alon Badat[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shondell Busby[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Richard Valentine[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Komlodi[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenji Nicks[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Janetos[edit]

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

appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 29 March 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 As sympathetic as I am to the nominator's arguments, the consensus is to keep. I believe he acted in good faith by attempting to find someone to source them first before coming here. As for other concerns raised in this discussion, (1) For better or worse, Saturday morning tv is a central part of US popular culture, but it may help to convince non-US folks of this by adding information in the header -- say, the number of average viewers for each season; (2) AFAICS, none of the other Saturday morning tv schedules have been merged to the general schedule; for that to happen (which IMHO is a proposal worth discussing) one would need to start a discussion at WP:RM. -- llywrch (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)[edit]

1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (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 found these while working WP:URA, where I am working on the oldest group of unreferenced articles. There are 6 articles at the top of Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 about network TV schedules, completely without references. Some of the articles in the series (1961–1962 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)) where sourced with Source: The TV Schedule Book, Castleman & Podrazik, McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, 1984., which is a bit early for some of the remaining articles. There was a previous AfD on the larger group which passed No consensus. I presented a request at WikiProject Television for assistance finding references. The outcome is that is no interest in this project for improving or maintaining these articles. Per WP:DIRECTORY " electronic program guide" are fail WP:NOT unless they are of historically significance. There is no indication of significance or notability. The only response from the project was to delete the articles. Jeepday (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This a group nomination for these articles

1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1983–1984 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1984–1985 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1987–1988 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1988–1989 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1989–1990 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Actually, "it's useful" is a valid argument for a list, which each of these are, even though they don't look like most lists. There is no doubt as to accuracy, the inclusion criteria are clear, the links are all blue... Carrite (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it would reduce controversy, change names to List of American Saturday morning television shows, 1981-1982, etc. The current name strikes me as being more simple however. There is a valid navigational function for each of these. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article should also improve its reliability with the addition of verifiable sources. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 14:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just curious how is the article going to improve its reliability? The addition of published WP:RS is trump card for showing WP:N and meeting WP:V. The WP:Burden for adding those reference is on content supports not on the article. There truly are no articles that have been tagged as unreferenced longer then these as evidenced by Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2006. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a longer and more recent discussion here which is more ambiguous. Hut 8.5 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, four years is not an "eternity" by any stretch of the imagination; it is four years, but unlike many of the 2,400 other articles tagged in October 2006, these can be referenced. Now that I have added references for 1981-1984, will you strike through your nomination of those years? Serious reference works exist for U.S. network television schedules for the years 1946-2007: they appear in Castleman and Podrazik (1982), Castleman and Podrazik (1984), Castleman and Podrazik (2002), Brooks and Marsh (2007 and earlier editions), McNeil (1996 and earlier editions), and Bergmann and Skutch (2002), and are discussed at great length in other scholarly works (I own each of these books except Castleman and Podrazik's 2002 update). Brooks and Marsh and McNeil are television encyclopedias, with the other books also being valuable reference works. Castleman and Podrazik's works are of most use in this debate because they specifically list network schedules for the years in question on Saturday mornings. According to the Five pillars of what Wikipedia is, Wikipedia is supposed to "incorporate elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". This is supposed to be a "fundamental principle" of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never ever remove material covered in serious printed reference works, and these schedules have all been noted somewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the references that show WP:N then add them to the articles. That will end any discussion about WP:N as they will meet the nutshell description of meeting "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article.". If they fail WP:NOT is still under discussion, many reasonable arguments that they fail WP:NOT have been presented above. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I have already added a reference which notes, discusses, and verifies the 1981-1984 schedules that you have nominated here for deletion, and I asked you to strike through your nomination of those articles. You have not done so. So I do not believe that adding references will "end any discussion about WP:N". I believe that no matter how many references are added, there will still be editors who believe WP:NOT somehow trumps WP:N. Of course, that is not the case. You stated that you nominated these articles because they lacked sources and had been left tagged as having no sources for many years. That is no longer the case for the 1981-1984 schedules; they have a reference which both verifies their content and which notes the subject (at length, I might add). Therefore, I will ask you again to strike through your nomination of the articles which now are sourced. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One reference is not "significant and enduring notice by the world at large" and WP:NOT can trump WP:N "and are not excluded for other reasons". Jeepday (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeepday, you have quoted the "nutshell" of Wikipedia's notability guideline to me multiple times now. I would have thought once would be enough; repeatedly quoting the guideline won't underscore your point any more than it did the first time, especially when the second part you're quoting clearly states that significant discussion in printed books are a good indicator of notability. When Wikipedia deletes material covered in print encyclopedias and other printed reference works, it is only Wikipedia which suffers. Wikipedia's notability guideline is meant to be a common-sense guide of what should be included on Wikipedia: If a topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I am telling you right now that the three articles that I referenced have received significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject, and there are most certainly other sources, but deleting an article which is already sourced to a printed reference work written by authors who have written several books on the subject (including at least one book which has a revised edition) is a bad idea. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decision on what delete or not are not mine, I have proposed and I have discussed, as have you. The outcome is dependent on the closing admin. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as an administrator, I'm aware of how AFDs run. I did not ask you to make the final decision on what to delete or not to delete. I asked you to strike through your nomination of several articles which you felt were unsourced and unsourceable, but which now have a reliable source. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other administrators (which has no baring on strength of argument, only access to tools) contributing to the discussion feel that these articles also seem to fail WP:NOT, which may lead to their deletion regardless of references. So asking me to strike them is asking me to remove them from the deletion discussion. Also note that a conversation at pump Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? is very similar to this and supports arguments to delete. Though historical these discussions have closed no consensus. Jeepday (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only someone with no knowledge of the U.S. network television schedules or television history would compare them to bus routes(!). The schedules affected (and still affect) 300 million viewers each year, and although the 1980s Saturday morning network schedules have a smaller audience, it's still in the millions of viewers. Indeed, the schedules can make or break a network, as discussed in reliable sources (particularly Heldenfels, 1994), and the schedules affect the entire U.S. television industry: each of the series listed in these schedules aired on 200 local affiliate stations. But, hey, that's totally like a bus route! ;) No, if these articles are deleted due to someone who nominated them because "sources just can't be found", and then a printed source is immediately found, but then the debate shifts to "well, they still violate WP:NOT because they're like a bus route", it will be a truly stupid day for Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1960–1961 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) was deleted as an expired WP:PROD back in July 2010. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to edit his or her link above so there's no chance of the closing admin being confused (JeepdaySock, I assume you're fine with this, but feel free to revert if you aren't)--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix. Jeepday (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) thought it was better not to wait and asked for it to be restored, so this isn't an issue anymore.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's probably logical to include that article in this nomination, isn't it?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was ((subst:Bot(({1))))}
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruggles Prize[edit]

Ruggles Prize (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 award issued by a college math department for which sourcing independent of the subject doesn't seem to appear. No reliable sources appear which discuss the subject in "significant detail," as is required by WP:GNG. No mention of the award is made in the George Washington University article itself, which were it a genuinely notable honor would not likely be the case (and truth be told, the entire Academics section of the GWU article is just over twice the word count of this AfD.) No mentions of the award at all on Google Scholar, and only four Google hits [19] referencing the award at all, all as passing references of it on website bios of winners. Not even any mention of the award in the searcheable archives of GW Today, the college's official periodical [20], or the GW Hatchet, the college's student newspaper [21]. PROD removed without comment by editor (after the week had gone by and the prod expired) who then complained to ANI about a PROD being filed at all, but who has not then or subsequently made any attempts to source or improve the article.  Ravenswing  11:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing to recommend it. None of the four hits are actually about the prize itself - zero notability. MarkDask 19:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Ravenswing's research and analysis of the sources has convinced me that this award is not notable. Reyk YO! 20:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above comments, and a side comment that if Norton wanted this un-deleted, he could have at least given a reason, rather than saying that RG was simply trying to "avoid scrutiny". This prize seems little noticed, and probably simply deserves a mention in the main biography of William Ruggles, but beyond that, it is probably not terribly notable. -- Avanu (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beats me. Norton's made 30+ edits since I filed the AfD, so it's not as if he can claim to have been AFK. No doubt a number of us could speculate on the motives of such an experienced editor who opposes a PROD so strenuously as to take it to AN/I, without once saying why he opposes it or lifting a finger to advocate the subject's notability. To do so here would, in all likelihood, be uncivil.  Ravenswing  07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to William Ruggles. This should clearly be a redirect to there in any case. Hobit (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge and redirect to William Ruggles, no reason at all to delete. Does anyone now the name for the debating tactic where you say "I am not saying my opponent rape's farm animals ..." I seem to remember there is a name for the tactic, but can't remember the name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - it is called Ad Hominem, but I get the feeling you already were aware. If this is a slight about us awaiting your comment here, your mention of it might be considered a Non-Sequitur or Digression. You could have simply asked for the content of the Ruggles Prize to be included in the William Ruggles article in the first place; I doubt any of us would have minded. The approach that you took instead involved requiring an admin to pull it out of PROD and then saying the editor who nominated was abusing procedure. Then you took hours to get a comment in and the substantive portion of it was "no reason at all to delete". I guess that could be sufficient, but I have seen several people post reasons of their own, and so I find it a bit lacking to simply say that and then go down to a mention of raping farm animals. Not sure what you wish to accomplish, but if it is community support, there is probably a better way. -- Avanu (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree fully that this should not have been an ANI issue, it seems that there was an objection raised when the admin undeleted this article per the request, even though that is entirely within the PROD procedure. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I really don't think, after taking a legitimate PROD to ANI, you've earned any right to complain about anyone's tactics, real or imagined. "No reason to delete" is a garbage answer we'd rightly take a newcomer to task for proffering, never mind from an editor with tens of thousands of edits. As with the PROD, the reason to delete is given, at some length and bolstered with considerable evidence. You plainly don't like the reason - where have I heard that before? - but that doesn't mean there are none. Would you care to try again, with some rationale founded in Wikipedia policy or guidelines?  Ravenswing  20:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I'd say merge, but the info on the prize is adequately covered in Ruggles' article, and including more would just make it unbalanced. A redirect doesn't seem out of the question. Yaksar (let's chat) 05:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. Xxanthippe (talk).
Uh, what?--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Redirect is O.K. with me. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete; not notable. bobrayner (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to William Ruggles. Don't see any reason given why deletion should be preferred over a redirect (unless William Ruggles is not notable - I have not checked - in which case that article too should be considered for deletion). Rlendog (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sold myself on Ruggles' notability, and will examine that in more detail after this is done. If you read through his own article, its sole source is the college's website, and his sole claim to notability is that he taught there a long time. Of such is not passing WP:PROF made.  Ravenswing  19:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I boldy redirected. You are welcome to take William Ruggles to afd --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly un-redirected per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." VernoWhitney (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite aside from that the vox populi here is for deletion, not redirection.  Ravenswing  19:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside the process issues of redirecting right now during the AfD, why do you have a problem with redirecting the article? If William Ruggles is kept, why shouldn't a user looking for "Ruggles Prize" be sent there? And if William Ruggles is deleted, it would be appropriate to delete this redirect at that time. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because, quite bluntly, if the subject is too insignificant to be mentioned in the GWU official publications - the only mention on the entire GWU website was in a portmanteau column on the Department of Mathematics page listing the winners of the SEVERAL prizes they issue - the odds that anyone's going to come to Wikipedia instead are between, well, nil and nil.  Ravenswing  06:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. If this gets deleted I'll certainly add a redirect which I suppose you could take to RfD where I very much believe it would be kept. The bar is _really_ low for a redirect and this more than meets it. Hobit (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not verifiable via reliable sources = not notable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with [22] for meeting WP:V? There are also some 20 links on the page itself that are verifiable. I agree on WP:N, but WP:V is met by a mile. Hobit (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The painfully obvious fact that an organization's own website cannot be used to verify an award given out by that organization? (2) Tell you what ... how about you go back over that list and cross out every one that pertains to "Columbian College" and "GWU," which fall under the same prohibition. Then you can eliminate the fraternity and sorority newsletters, which has such things have always been, are largely user-submitted and run afoul of WP:NOTRS. That leaves only one remaining independent, reliable reference. If you actually read it, it is an investigation into the finances of GWU, quoting a university report proposing the creation of such a prize among every other prize and scholarship ever cited ... and that's it.  Ravenswing  13:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know its not quite on topic, but sometimes the restrictions on how we have to source things for Wikipedia are a bit annoying. I agree about the non-notability of the Ruggles Prize. Its just that the reliable source guideline often means that we have to willfully ignore a lot of strong evidence (or even our own fact-checking - for example if I personally went to GWU and viewed a Ruggles Prize being handed out). -- Avanu (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the New Testament[edit]

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

Soap and coat article with backlogged tags. The biggest problem is that the article cites non-notable, fringe persons to support contentious subject. A bunch of statements comes from primary source and smells like WP:OR. The antisemitist nature of cited New Testament quotations is disputable: no distinction is made between the antisemitism and actual criticism of Jews by Jesus. The opinions themselves come from those disputable New Testament passages. Brandmeister t 11:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A quick review shows that the article cites indepndent scholarly sources such as Daniel Goldhagen whom the nom dismisses as "fringe". The article needs some addition of inline citations and revision but is clearly notable, saveable, and worth keeping. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being OR and POV. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix it. Indisputably a notable topic, with 600 hits at Google books, and a valuable article could be written under this heading. If this version needs work, then go to it! Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable topic with many sources there even are whole book written about the subject.--Shrike (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As stated, a notable topic heavily discussed in multiple reliable scholarly sources, and (as stated) about which whole books have been written. It's true this article contains too much OR based on primary sources; on the other hand, it also cites (among others) James Dunn (theologian), who wrote extensively on the topic, and A. Roy Eckardt, one of Fifty Key Thinkers on the Holocaust and Genocide. They are in no way "non-notable, fringe persons". Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify — this is a notable topic but in its current state it is jam-packed with original research. It should be rewritten. *** Crotalus *** 14:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All putative citations to fringe persons should be remediated, and all OR should be backed up by a citation, but that's not a proper rationale for deletion. I don't get this nomination. Keep. -- Y not? 19:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is not "OR" to record the antisemitism of the NT, often verbatim, as the plentiful sources and citations in this article prove. The article can use some polishing, but it is notable. It is impossible to "split" Jesus from the New Testament since it's all about him and his sayings, so the nominator's contention/s are both absurd and incorrect. By the way, there are plenty of similar critical articles in Category:Criticism of Judaism with inferior content that is allowed to exist, while this topic is serious and notable. IZAK (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't be citing the Bible in this or any other context without reliable third-party sources backing it up. Whether a particular verse is aimed against all Jews or only the speaker's immediate opponents is a matter of context and interpretation, and this is exactly the kind of thing where we need to rely on third-party sources. *** Crotalus *** 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Unfortunately, there is anti-Semitic writing in the New Testament.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there is anti-Judaic writing in the New Testament.[23] Anti-Semitism (that is, racialized hatred of Jews) did not exist until the Modern Era. *** Crotalus *** 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of scholars have written about this topic, AFD is not cleanup etc. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Hidalgo[edit]

Marco Hidalgo (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 assertion of notability and unsourced BLP. Sure they might have played in the nationals but apart from that they don't have any notable achievements. NSPORTS holds that, "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria." which the article fails to do, it might meet NFOOTBALL but it fails the most basic requirement for every sports-related article. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:59pm • 10:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Subject clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL, it's a pity the nominator did not take a little more time to familiarise himself with Wikipedia policy. WWGB (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having read that I see that it does meet the Criteria for inclusion, but "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria." There are NO reliable sources. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 9:27am • 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So a reference to Marco Hidalgo as a current player on the front page of the premier division club's website [24] is not a reliable source? That was already in the article when you nominated it for deletion. WWGB (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hidalgo plays for a fully professional team in Chilean Primera División, which is the highest tier of football in Chile. This seems to meet WP:NFOOTY. The sources provided seem to confirm the information in the article, meager though it may be. It's thin, and an obvious stub, but it looks OK to me. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points, below - this league isn't quite at the FPL level demanded by WP:NFOOTY. Put me under Weak Delete then. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 23:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wavering delete on line in sand. Actually WP:NFOOTBALL specifies they should play in a FPL as listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues, which does not list Chile in the fully professional section. For a player that played every week one might spend the time debating whether "only 12 players on each team are required to be professional" is good as an FPL considering the player would likely have the appropriate coverage and the "requirement" is likely surpassed by most teams and playing top level in Chile is probably a bigger achievement than 4th tier England. For a bit part player with 4 appearances it would be nice if coverage outside match reports and player profile listings were forthcoming....--ClubOranjeT 09:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I'd normally use WP:COMMONSENSE in borderline cases such as this, but with only one appearance in a semi-pro league in 2 years, this guy fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has not played in a fully pro league and has no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, failing WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 01:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sourcing at WP:FPL indicates that the Chilean Primera Division is not fully pro, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is no indication of significant coverage, meaning he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 30 March 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. Any content that is properly sourced may be pulled from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Didasko Files[edit]

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

Tagged with multiple issues since March 2009. Notability is not established, this is merely a list of books that are part of a Lausanne Movement project. As such, none of the 3 ref's are 3rd party sources. The individual books on the list are non-notable at this point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qstom[edit]

Qstom (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 can't see sufficient notability or verifiability here, particularly for a BLP. What notability there is seems to be inherited from having worked on three notable animated movies, but only as a colour artist, which is not really a position that would allow one to inherit the movie's notability even if we did allow notability to be inherited. Sure, a colour artist isn't being the teaboy but it isn't being lead animator either. It gets him an entry in IMBD but it doesn't lead to significant coverage by reliable sources. Awards are listed but those are for the films, not Lopez himself, who gets no Google News hits at all. He has freelanced for some notable animation studios but then so have a lot of people. Then there is the claim that he is a contemporary artist, which is true, but he seems to exhibit on-line only. I see no gallery exhibitions and no Google News for his name of Qstom. Finally there is verifiability. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, where de we get the biographical details from? How can we check things like the birthdate? In short, I think this has to go, at least until he gets more recognition either as an animator or as an artist. DanielRigal (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pen lid[edit]

Pen lid (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 provides no meaningful content to Wikipedia that couldn't be and isn't already covered in pen. The article creator has been known to do this on several different topics. Illinois2011 (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as many pen caps have holes in them and are intentionally not air tight, its not even accurate.Monty845 08:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom or Redirect to Pen LordVetinari (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Redirect--Shrike (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced, not notable, and not a plausible search term Cullen328 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - snowball this. No redirect called for; not even the common term for a pen cap, and people who are interested in pens will know where to go. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article, don't leave a redirect, and remove the computer priveleges of the original creator. There's having a laugh and there's taking the Michael. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and crush article creator with virtual tractor.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete: non notable subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samgoma Edwards[edit]

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

Created some YouTube videos and acted in one music video in 2007. Bgwhite (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-sharp minor[edit]

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

Redirect to F minor. Not notable - no works have used this key, no sources. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Lanthanum-138 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. E-sharp is equivalent to F. Eauhomme (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It fulfils a useful function in the template:Circle of fifths. Redirecting it would require that the article on F minor has to incorporate the current text at E-sharp minor. The search provided above for books shows that the scale is mentioned in serious books. There are some compositions in this key. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep E sharp minor is not the same as F minor for various reasons, including that E sharp and F don't necessarily have the same pitch.  A merged article would have what in appearance are two totally different concepts.  It is sufficient that e#minor appears on the Template:Circle of fifths.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick skim of the scholar and book searches automatically linked in the nomination shows that this key has been used by Beethoven, Bach, Liszt, Chopin, Schoenberg, Vaughan Williams, Scriabin and I got fed up with adding to the list before I got anywhere near the end of the search links. The same searches also find many works on music theory that discuss this key. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The page seems to have function now. Seeking consensus to merge and redirect could be pursued without an AfD. -MrFizyx (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Scarlatelli[edit]

Lindsay Scarlatelli (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 Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ComforCare Senior Services[edit]

ComforCare Senior Services (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 article says it is a franchised provider of private-duty, non-medical home care, but the article looks like an advertisement, the article has some references, but does not meet WP:VERIFY, because the article should have third party references. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 06:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a Google search finds only advertising and trivial mentions. The inline citations to news articles are either press releases, mentions in passing, or small papers profile a local business person. No evidence that this franchise is notable. SeaphotoTalk 08:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as per WP:CORP, could find no relevant references to establish notability. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrols Industries Ltd.[edit]

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

Article is written like an advertisement, and the whole article is filled with links and looks like a trivia, going against several policies that an article should follow, including, but not restricting to WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:TRIVIA. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsalvageable advertising. The article is at least part copyvio from the company's website here. No RS coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement for a non notable company--Sodabottle (talk) 05:59, 29 March 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City F.C.[edit]

Capital City 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)

Non notable soccer club, this team has been recently created and per WP:NSPORTS and WP:GROUP it does not suffice the requirements to have an article here (like playing a season, having more than one professional athlete, making headlines, being referenced on media and so on). Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sidenote - I also forgot to mention that the article has no text in it, it is just a infobox. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a quick Google search would have shown notability - this team plays in the CSL, the highest soccer league in Canada. GiantSnowman 16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plays in the highest Canadian league, so for sure notable. Needs more text and info though. Kante4 (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any club in the CSL is notable because it is the highest soccer league in Canada, passing WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broughton Hall, Flintshire[edit]

Broughton Hall, Flintshire (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 article says that it was a large country house, but this does not enhance any notability factor for this article, and I tried to find any suitable websources, but couldn't find any. The article also mentions Sir John Glynne as one of the former owners, however on Sir John Glynne's article there is no mention about it. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 05:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. <Sigh>. Someone else who doesn't appreciate that there are sources other than the internet and that a building demolished before the internet began is not likely to have many mentions. Even having said that, a search in the (subscription only) Times Digital Archive brought up several mentions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have corrected the article, there was a mistake in one of my sources, I have added more facts that I have referenced, a photo exists with Flintshire Record Office of the house. -- User:Ricko99dog 17:56, 29 March 2011 (BST)
  • Keep - seems to be notable enough to sustain an article. That the article needs improvement (((infobox building)) to start with) is not a reason to delete. Although demolished in the 1970s, it may have been a listed building, which would further add weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Largest residence in Beverly Hills[edit]

Largest residence in Beverly Hills (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 indication that this residence is independently notable. The references only mention this house in a trivial manner, and it is not even clear that the references was not hyperbole. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Reference is a state licensed reputable real estate broker. "Near the end of 1995, JBN sold a home in Beverly Hills at 1156 Shadow Hill Way ( at that time the largest private residence in Beverly Hills)" A newspaper need only print a retraction for an error, but real estate broker has real liability for accuracy, not just financial but criminal. Liability for misrepresentation as to size would be enormous. Its also the 14th highest property taxes in Beverly Hills.[27]. Most of the early listed residences on the property tax list are notable. PPdd (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The broker's description may be accurate, or it may not. However, we require sources that are independent of the topic, and that discuss the subject in depth. A real estate broker has an enormous financial stake in this matter, and therefore what the broker writes is not an independent source.Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the broker wrote "at that time the largest private residence in Beverly Hills", then that implies that it is no longer the largest residence in that city. Therefore, the specific notability claim made in the title (dubious though that claim may be) appears likely to be false. That's another reason to delete. Cullen328 (talk) 04:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One can't argue with Cullen328's last comment, as the article title is wrong. PPdd (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think Aaron Spelling's House at 594 South Mapleton Drive Los Angeles is the one that is now bigger (though not technically in Beverly Hills). Spelling's is at the bottom of Beverly Hills (near UCLA), 1156 is at the top of the knoll. PPdd (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I started a new article Largest residences in Beverly Hills, and moved all the content there (and reworded it), plus added the Aaron Spelling residence. Propose delete and redirect the article to Largest residences in Beverly Hills. PPdd (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of pedantry, I have to point out that the Spelling house is not in Beverly Hills. The scope of the proposed redirect article is unclear, which makes it difficult to endorse the proposed redirect. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Cullen328. In addition, 1995 is 16 years ago. How do we know it's still the largest residence? Finally, who cares? What justifies an article about the largest residence in Beverly Hills or even the largest residences (plural)? What about the most expensive, even if it's not the largest? What about the least expensive (in BH, arguably, more interesting)? If needed, such information could be added to the Beverly Hills article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I created this article and voted to delete above. I redirected it to the appropriately named artice, Largest private residences in the Beverly Hills area, which fully contains all of this article's info. If any editors voting to "keep" think it merits its own article, please undo the redirect. PPdd (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would probably vote to delete the residences (plural) article, so I don't see how its creation plus a redirect resolves anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject of article does not appear to pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am going to reverse the redirect; that was an inappropriate action to take in the middle of an AfD discussion. Let's discuss the article on its merits, and if "redirect" is the consensus, do it then. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G10, without a redirect. Now that I have read the article, I find that the subject (the house) is not notable, and the article itself contains unsourced, negative information about a living person. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus between keep and merge. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Il-2 Sturmovik: 1946[edit]

Il-2 Sturmovik: 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)

No notability, no sources, sounds a little like a product page. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability. Someoneanother 00:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is a real mess, it needs a cleanup and listing of references. Notability can be easily established by following metacritic link as per above. Icemotoboy (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Church[edit]

Anthony Church (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, no reason given. Footballer fails WP:FOOTYN as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. A lack of any significant media coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 01:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 March 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 Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. Hut 8.5 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AirAsia destinations[edit]

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

obscure synonym for an article name Девојка2 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Firstly, as these are redirects this the wrong venue. In the future post an redirect for deletion at WP:RFD. Secondly, per my keep vote, this is a very plausible search term as the trading name "AirAsia Group" is not normally used. I suggest that you read WP:REDIRECT to understand why these pages are here, and why they are useful. Ravendrop 02:04, 27 March 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 Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. Hut 8.5 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AirAsia X Destinations[edit]

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

obscure synonym for an article name Девојка2 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Firstly, as these are redirects this the wrong venue. In the future post an redirect for deletion at WP:RFD. Secondly, per my keep vote, this is a very plausible search term as the trading name "AirAsia Group" is not normally used. I suggest that you read WP:REDIRECT to understand why these pages are here, and why they are useful. Ravendrop 02:04, 27 March 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 Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. Hut 8.5 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airasia group destinations[edit]

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

obscure synonym for an article name Девојка2 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Firstly, as these are redirects this the wrong venue. In the future post an redirect for deletion at WP:RFD. Secondly, per my keep vote, this is a very plausible search term as a typo/alternate capitalization. I suggest that you read WP:REDIRECT to understand why these pages are here, and why they are useful. Ravendrop 02:05, 27 March 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 Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. Hut 8.5 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Asia Group destinations[edit]

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

obscure synonym for an article name Девојка2 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Firstly, as these are redirects this the wrong venue. In the future post an redirect for deletion at WP:RFD. Secondly, per my keep vote, this is a very plausible search term as typo/alternative capitalization. I suggest that you read WP:REDIRECT to understand why these pages are here, and why they are useful. Ravendrop 02:06, 27 March 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 Procedural close. Redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD. Hut 8.5 11:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Air Asia Group Destination[edit]

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

obscure synonym for an article name Девојка2 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Firstly, as these are redirects this the wrong venue. In the future post an redirect for deletion at WP:RFD. Secondly, per my keep vote, this is a very plausible search term as typo/alternative capitalization. I suggest that you read WP:REDIRECT to understand why these pages are here, and why they are useful. Ravendrop 02:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dewas - Pithampur Bus Service[edit]

Dewas - Pithampur Bus Service (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 bus route bobrayner (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 20 March 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) 00:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable and not directory. Ravendrop 02:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobrayner and Ravendrop. Of the three main references cited, one is a broken link and the other two are irrelevant to the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIR--Sodabottle (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fishmax fishing magazine[edit]

Fishmax fishing 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 publication WuhWuzDat 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 20 March 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) 00:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - search revealed nothing other than promo material for this online site, even when using "FishMax" as the search term, which did generate a few more hits, but nothing supporting notability. SeaphotoTalk 08:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Seaphoto Peter.C • talk • contribs 14:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article was nominated for deletion less than a minute after it was created. It never had a chance to develop. Having said that, it is hard to see how it could be made notable. Wavehunter (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply; its not the articles notability that is under discussion here, but rather the notability of the articles subject. WuhWuzDat 06:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion. Merge discussion can continue on talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Html5 in mobile devices[edit]

Html5 in mobile devices (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 think really this article needs to be merged to HTML5. I'll leave this to the discretion of the community. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 08:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge, doesn't seem to have sufficient notability as a separate topic and HTML5 is fairly short, it's not like it would have to be spun back out soon. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and refactor: The article does not seem to be NPOV and all of its content is best in the context of the HTML article.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on the article and hope more and more contributors will join so as to make the article grow. HTML5 support for mobile devices seems to be a separate topic, because of the rapid growth of the devices that connect to the Internet. I believe that HTML5 design for Mobile Devices is different from designing for the web. The Article gives an overview of the mobile Web and the trends that are shaping to support HTML5 in mobile devices Canceo (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (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, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why did you bring this here? AfD is not for merges. Be bold and make the changes, or gain consensus on the talk page. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's some strength to an argument for merging, but I think it's too early to judge. HTML5 is a big topic, which will inevitably span more than one article. Mobile devices will be one of those. Even if there's a case for merging the articles today (and even that is tenuous), we'd only have to go and fork them again later. I see no overall benefit to this, it's just process for the sake of process. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP; nomination withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Miller (Czech actor)[edit]

Withdrawing nomination now that much secondary source coverage has been found and all claims hav been substantiated. I'm not sure how I missed it really! Dr. B certainly deserves a rescue barnstar. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 13:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsubstantiated claims. No secondary source coverage found. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 10:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Would seem to pass WP:ENT with the number of credits he has (at least 90 according to IMDB). Lugnuts (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' but only if references are added. IJA (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMBD is not a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 17:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs added and AMG link included to back-up IMDB claims to pass WP:ENT. Lugnuts (talk) 18:38, 20 March 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, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets requirements. Why was this relisted??♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment It was presumably relisted because the only source provided was IMDB (unreliable), and the other user said Keep but only if references are added (which they haven't been yet). I'm still vouching for delete because nobody has yet provided any suitable references to assert notability -how does it meet requirements-? Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 12:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"but only if references are added (which they haven't been yet)." I added a couple of references straight away! And now should be a straight-forward keep thanks to the excellent work from Dr B. Lugnuts (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Ignore my last comment. I didn't actually look at the improved article, just the deletion discussion, and missed your comment, Lugnuts. I am withdrawing the nomination. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 13:39, 27 March 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 4x4=12. In the future, if you want something to be done to an article that is not deletion, you do not need to go through AfD (see WP:SK). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raise Your Weapon[edit]

Raise Your Weapon (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 song by itself. Merge to artist's article instead failing WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 11:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:12, 20 March 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, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Voss[edit]

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

Possibly a straight CSD per A7 since only claim of notability is him being in a probably non-notable TV series, itself standing for deletion. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Meets no other inclusion criteria at WP:BIO. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 10:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added links in the article to seven other articles, each of which legitimately refers to him in a part probably too small to be notable - but I'd like others to judge. (I'm almost tempted by cases like these to suggest a List of non-notable actors, to which links like these could be redirected.) PWilkinson (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the article, he's had some coverage from theatre company websites which I've added, and there's also a BBC source confirming his involvement in an audio drama and another for Doctor Who. I would leave up to consensus to determine whether he is notable or not, however the deletion review for Fish looks like it'll be revoked and there seems to be evidence of extensive theatrical credits. Black-Velvet 02:48, 21 March 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, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references since provided make him notable. One source is in fact his home page which I have put in the External links section and formatted the others. MarkDask 15:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lots of little parts can add up to notability per WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting WP:ENT, and continue improvements. Not done yet, no, but I am finding that his work in theater has received positive critical acclaim. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of DC Comics characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelle (DC Comics)[edit]

Gazelle (DC Comics) (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 think really this needs to be merged to List of DC Comics characters. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject itself. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 08:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if this is deleted, a better redirect target would probably be List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with deleting this article. Every other member of the Legion of Superheroes has a wikipedia article devoted to them. Why not Gazelle? This article has good references. Also, the other comics character named Gazelle (Marvel Comics) has a much smaller article and it has never been deleted. Also, Gazelle has only appeared in eight issues so far, so there is not a huge amount of information to cover yet. As she continues to appear in comics more information will be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughnut42 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For information, Gazelle (Marvel Comics) is now a redirect to Salem's Seven.--Crazy runner (talk) 07:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other superheroes have articles does not mean this one can. Maybe we should delete the other articles as well? This article shows no indication that the character has has enough reliable non-primary significant coverage to get an article on Wikipedia. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:56, 20 March 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, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per what I said above. Full-out deletion is not really necessary. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:06, 29 March 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 Space Carrier Blue Noah. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Star[edit]

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

By itself, this is a non-notable, fictional object which, if any of the claims can be substantiated, should be merged to the series' article. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 08:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 20 March 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, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Moakes[edit]

Gordon Moakes (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 singer by himself. Redirect to bands article. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 11:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He satisfies WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG independently of Bloc Party. He's more than just a backup singer, or something; he appears to act as spokesperson for Bloc Party, and I can find sources which seem to be primarily about him, e.g. [28],[29],[30],[31]. Pburka (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:19, 20 March 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) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Here We Are/Positive Tension[edit]

So Here We Are/Positive Tension (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 song by itself. Merge to artist's article instead failing WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:23, 20 March 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) 00:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It charted. Meets the notability guideline. Happily ever after. I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major hit single. Clearly notable. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect I'm pretty sure that #5 on a national chart doesn't make a song notable without some sort of award or recognition, but in any case there is not enough here to make an article so it fails the second part of WP:NSONGS - this is just (and is likely to only ever be) a track listing and some facts about crew that are equally applicable to the album Bob House 884 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd add that I disagree with Night Gyr and imo its totally acceptable to bring this here, nom wants the article's content deleted and redirecting is obviously the appropriate step after that. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for a song/single to have received an award to be notable. If it's been written about it's notable, and I've found reviews of this from rockfeedback, The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and the Sunday Mail, and further coverage from The Telegraph.--Michig (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To reitarate, I favour deletion because there is not enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article per WP:NSONGS. For comparison, the current #5 single's article looks like this - it has multiple, well sourced and verifiable sections on different significant areas of the subject, it has achieved this in around 2 months. The AfD concerns a single which may be as notable, but which has never become more than a stub despite existing for over 4 years. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that this article will never grow beyond a stub and therefore should be a redirect to the main article. A rescue may be a possibility, but in it's current state this is a slam dunk delete. Bob House 884 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mel (Ian Mellish)[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable musician with no sources. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS. The only references I can find are these two [37][38] which just confirm that the subject exists. All of his albums are published by a very small record label (Red Wharf), which I've also nominated for deletion. Pburka (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

I put this entry up originally and I strongly disgaree with the suggestion to delete this composer. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion seem to me to be somewhat diffcult to comply with fully in the case of experimental classical composers, who do not have the volume of sales or media attention that "pop" composers enjoy. Would Conlon Nancarrow or Harry Partch, in the middle of their careers have qualified for entry? According to strict use of Wikipedia criteria almost certainly not, but it would be absurd to argue that they were not very significant figures already by that point.

That is the case here: Mel is a significant figure in the field of experimental electronic music but has a more limited public profile than many musicians. Apart from his own CDs, he has one composition on an early Icebreaker (Icebreaker (band)) album and a remix on a later one. He has a significant list of public performances by a variety of ensembles, despite being primarily an electronic musician, and is very highly regarded within his field. I concede that the entry as it stands falls foul of WP:V, but it should be improved by adding in appropriate references and it is my intention to improve the article accordingly. Jamespoke (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

I do not agree this is a "non-notable musician". I have enjoyed his music several times in concerts. I am grateful to wikipedia for providing information on relatively obscure artists so strongly suggest the entry on Mellish be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobgilmore43 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless relevant, third-party sources can be found, this artist is not notable as per WP:ARTIST. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creating the article if independent reliable sources can be found. If the composer is most often known as "Mel", he will be difficult to Google because that name is quite common. Therefore, the supporters of this article should look for sources themselves, and add them to the article now if they find them now, or re-create the article later if they find proper sources later. It should be noted that the music notability criteria do allow for notability of musicians who are not part of the mainstream commercial music business if they are the subject of coverage in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana (agricultural machinery)[edit]

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

Couldn't find any secondary sources documenting this brand name. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see an issue of principles here. Wikipedia is indeed precious, because it contains literally thousands of articles about small companies (especially defunct ones) for which one can't find much by a Google-search (for the particular one, a quick search produced (in English) this (see D99 in the list), but if you try Greek (obviously more inclusive, "ΕΙΡΗΝΗ ΧΡΥΣΑΔΑΚΟΥ"), you will find references here, here and here). Of course, one must provide some litarature for support, so that the reader can make his own research. I am not going to argue more, after all this is "exotic" information that I share without asking for any credit. It is a big issue, though, that we could be starting deleting about half of Wikipedia.Skartsis (talk) 14:22, 21 March 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) 00:00, 27 March 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