The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigDom 20:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akbayan Youth[edit]

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

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

not notable, and un-referenced. nominating to see what other think, can probably be merged into Akbayan Citizens' Action Party if reliable, verifiable sources can be found somewhere Alan - talk 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please stop nominating things without following WP:BEFORE. Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. You can withdrawal your nomination if you want. Sunstar and Philstar both cover this group, it notable enough to have its actions reported. Many other search results there, which I won't bother going through. This should be enough proof. Dream Focus 04:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: An extremely cursory Google News search turned up a number of reliable sources which describe this group in detail. DreamFocus is dead on right in implying that this was a lazy nomination.  Ravenswing  20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am not so sure that this is a lazy nomination at all. The news articles mentioned above are not about this group at all - they are about a political issue and refer to something the group says about that issue. Strictly speaking, for the group to be notable, we would need to find sources where someone independent of the group specifically talks about the group itself. Otherwise the witness to a notable event can be considered notable if she is quoted in a newspaper article about the event. I'm looking for some evidence of notability and will return to express my delete/keep opinion soon. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found the sort of article that we need to establish notability [1]. This is an article specifically about the group and it seems to me to be from an independent source, which is crucial to determining notability. The only remaining question (as far as this source goes) is whether it is a reliable source as per the notability policy as set out in WP:RELIABLE. I am not sure that this is a mainstream news organization, but in my opinion, it is not biased or pushing a particular point of view and probably just qualifies. Therefore, I think we have a basis for establishing notability and the article should, in my opinion, stay. Having said that, it does need a lot of work - not least inline citations. Young Liberals (Australia) andYoung Liberals of Canada provide examples of better articles about similar organisations. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Political parties usually have a 'youth' organization under them, among many other various groups and chapters and such Young Republicans in the U.S. is a perfect example). Such things are usually included in the main article for the parent party unless they have done anything of notable significance. I can't seem to find anything of the sort with this group. I also notice most articles in a google and yahoo search refer to a simular named group prior to 2006, where this group is said to be founded in 2006 which raises some questions. The article itself is another story in itself of a lazy creator (like so many on here). If anything, a merge, or maybe a stub would fit here (even a stub would need to be a better article). The article looks more like an advertisement than an article. i'm also the one who nominated this article, just too lazy to sign in at the moment, and why this is just a comment and note a vote. also note the reason why we have AFD on here is to discuss it. AFD's don't neccesarily mean delete. to Dream Focus - talk about lazy.. when you do a search, read the articles, don't just look for the name in a title, the title in a search doesn't tell you the content or if it's reliable or notable. 98.254.114.74 (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD are for determining if an article's subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It is Articles for Deletion, nor Articles for Discussion. If you have a problem with the content you discuss it on the article's talk page. And any specific information you believe looks doubtful just add a ^{[citation needed]} tag and someone will find a reference for it. Dream Focus 05:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you obviously didn't read my comment, and apparently enjoy creating conflicts where there are none 98.254.114.74 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus is correct that content is not a reason for deletion, according to WP:DELETION, other than copyvio, vandalism, or content forks. Everything else in WP:DEL#REASON is about sourcing and non-article types like Files or Categories.

I have certainly never seen a guideline or even an essay that recommends merging Youth groups to the main group, and it is not my experience that they are routinely merged.

I'm going out a little bit on a speculative limb here, I admit, but it seems a little unlikely for any one editor to have witnessed this 'usual' merging, in any case, because once the articles had been merged there would be no distinction between a main group article that had not yet split, and a main group article that had had a Youth article merged with it. I also see Merge requests for articles that are already at 100 Kb, so I would not take the status quo of merging as an indication of the correct procedure either. Anarchangel (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible notability bars for political parties and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. If it exists, it should be the subject of encyclopedic coverage. This is the sort of information that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia, whether a group has 300 members or 300 million. This is a terrible article (it doesn't even mention the country in the lead), but this is clearly correctible via normal editing procedures. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 16 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. For me this was a difficult case. The nominator & those concurring with him all argued to the letter of the deletion criteria, an issue made no easier by the fact anarchangel made a persuasive counter-argument -- who also argued the letter of the deletion criteria. So what I looked at were the following:
(1) Does the article clearly express notability for about its subject? For technology related businesses, this would include things like market share, innovative technology, & whether its key employees were notable enough to transfer notability to this company. I saw no proof of this in the article.
(2) Does the article tell the reader anything that she/he could not learn from the company's website? (Some borderline companies never had a website, so in those cases the burden of proof must lie on the nominator.) After comparing this article to that website, I found the answer to be no.
I am closing this discussion based on these points, as well as an overwhelming majority in favor of its deletion. -- llywrch (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nefsis[edit]

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

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

As far as I can tell, every single source here is simply churnalism. None of it appears to be proper, thorough, independent analysis of this me-too product. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nefsis Basic provides two-way video conferencing, collaboration and VoIP with business-grade security capabilities and is targeted to consultants, freelancers, and entrepreneurs who work from a small office or home office. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble finding the content policy WP:PROVIDESTWOWAYVIDEOCONFERENCNGSERVICES which exempts an article from the requirement for reliable, independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another back-office online videoconferencing business, one of many, with no showing of the sort of significant impact on history, technology, or culture of the kind that would make it an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above, including the keep-vote. Guy, thank you for teaching me a new word: Churnalism. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 20-Mule-Team Delete: Well, there are a powerful heap of sources here, pardners. And all the media ones regurgitations of the same press releases ... sorta like a colicky cayuse. Fails WP:RS, WP:ORG.  Ravenswing  20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Re/ reliable, independent sources, the Chicago Tribune is reliable. Ditto Arizona Republic, eWeek, InfoWeek, ReadWriteWeb and others. The earlier citations did indeed cover similar product-related material, but Chicago Tribune and Arizona Republic covered different customers’ use of the technology and are unique articles. Chicago Tribune doesn't do churnalism. I, too, learned a new word <g>. Re/ noteworthiness for an encyclopedia subject, the Nefsis online service [WiredRed Corporation] was recognized by Frost & Sullivan in 2009 for applying cloud computing and parallel processing to video conferencing. The first application of cloud computing to video conferencing is noteworthy. This has a significant impact on industry and millions of video conferencing users as a generational change from on-premise switching equipment to shared resources in the cloud. --Pixelizer (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Pixelizer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - According to WP:RS the page has sources that are "reliable published sources" and the content included is factual. --Karebear 1022 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - According to WP:RS the page has sources that are "reliable published sources" and the content included is factual. --Karebear 1022 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC) <--agreed with this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.194.111 (talk) [reply]
• Keep per WP:DEL Reasons #5 and 6. Look at News: sourcing is not impossible. Multiple independent sources exist and coverage is not trivial. First of all, the nomination reason is just wrong. There is one source title very similar to another, but after looking through five sources in a Google News search and in the article, I gave up trying to find another copy. This amounts to little more than a chance for the nominator to use this new word in a sentence.

Nomination is every bit as pre-fab and insubstantial as it purports the article to be. A neologism as rationale, a subjective: "proper", and an IDONTLIKE: "me-too product". The only words in the whole nomination that bear any relation to WP rules are 'source' and 'independent'. Anyone who wants to change RS knows where to go: multiple copies is not even a rule, much less an actual problem with this article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while there is some coverage in third-party sources here, they're not reliable sources; most just seem to be blogs and press-release recyclers. The coverage in reliable sources, such as the Chicago Tribune and Arizona Republic, isn't significant enough to count for our inclusion guidelines. Robofish (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The sources are not notable. The Chigago Tribune source is a very brief passing mention. Cloudbook is simply a directory. Many of the other sources are simply press releases, and many others are personal blogs. Of all the links I clicked, there is not a single source in any of the 18 listed that passes the notability guidelines. None of the sources meet the 'depth of criteria' and 'independence of sources' guidelines as found in WP:ORG. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is nothing more than an advertisement for a non-notable company masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. Agree with Ukexpat above. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sourcing doesn't show notability even under lax standards.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:20, 17 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. BigDom 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Marlborough[edit]

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

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

Amateur parks team playing at the seventeenth level of the English football league system. Does not pass WP:FOOTY rule of thumb of having competed in the FA Cup, and no coverage found to get through WP:GNG, which is not surprising considering the extremely low level of football concerned. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. This club clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Really not notable. Kante4 (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Definately doesn't pass notability rules. Delusion23 (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, team plays at a low level, so not notable. GiantSnowman 12:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Non-notable club. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Other clubs at and below that level have pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelM935 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the fact that other clubs from such a low level might have articles does not mean a "free pass" onto WP for your team. In fact if anything, the others should probably be deleted too. For the record, though, there do not actually seem to be any other articles in Category:English football clubs on clubs who play at such a low level and have never played any higher...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Extremely non-notable football club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 13th level football club should be non-notable. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. I had previously nominated the article for speedy deletion per WP:CSD A7 but JoelM935 overwrote the tag. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 13 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. BigDom 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Janus[edit]

Jaroslav Janus (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 or the WP:NHOCKEY guideline for ice hockey players. Onthegogo (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The nomination was withdrawn last time around on the assumption that he was "Named to the World Junior Championships All-Star Team in 2009." However, I don't see proof of that in any of the sources listed, and I would be extremely surprised if he had been. He kept goal for the Slovakian team in the 2009 IIHF World U18 Championships, to be sure, but that team had 1 win and 3 losses, and according to the link in the article [2], he allowed 21 goals in his 7 games. Of course if he made the all-star team with that type of stat, then that's a notable, even historic achievement. I'm sure that the all-star honors for a goalkeeper were based on a stat of somewhat fewer than 3 goals per game... this article has stayed up a little bit too long. Mandsford 21:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Onthegogo and Mandsford have hit the nail on the head with their comments. Spidey104 22:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He definitely was named to the 2009 U20 tournament all star team, proof. I'm not really sure that this passes #4 of WP:NHOCKEY though. IF he won the goaltender of the tournament (which he didn't) i might be swayed to weak keep, but I'm uncertain at this point. Ravendrop 22:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: For years now, certain parties have claimed that honors garnered at the WJC constitute presumptive notability per NHOCKEY. For years now, and over and over again, decisive consensus has rejected that premise. Failing that, he's a backup goalie in the ECHL. So far, fail.  Ravenswing  20:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The WJC isnt notable enough it self to create a hockey player page, so delete. USA1168 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 12 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.   -- Lear's Fool 08:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cask Thomson[edit]

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

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

Previously deleted via AfD. This new version does not appear to establish notability any better than the previous article. No evidence of meeting any of the criteria set forth in WP:MUSIC, and no WP:RS indicating subject meets WP:GNG. Kinu ^t/_c 20:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete – Appears to have substantially less information and sources than the previous incarnation. Article makes no new claims of importance since the last AFD. Subject still has yet to meet notability guidelines. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed – Claims of notability with Dream Theater, Hillsong United and Operator Please are verifiable, I am not much of a fan but I have seen him front Australia's big exo day with a decent sized following, more citations needed however —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.142.166 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep – Cask Thomson is frequently played on Australian radio and Rage Music Television. He has performed quite a few gigs with Stan Walker and I would definitely define him as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.202.156 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep – Your right Cask performed with Stan Walker during his 2010 tour and I saw him as a guest artist with Powerhouse Retreat in Central Coast, Australia. You will also find that he has done a few charity appearances with the Parramatta Eels this year. Most of the proof that can back up these claims will be found in Eternity magazine and numerous Drum Media and Australian Prog magazine issues. (Also to the user after the post above me, its "Keep" not "Opposed" to defend an article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.235.150 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment to those voting keep – Please review the nominator's reasons for deleting this article before submitting your argument. Please explain why Cask Thompson meets the criteria at both WP:GNG and WP:BAND, and support your claims using reliable third-party published sources. Having a biographical article entirely supported by social networking and first-party sources literally suggests that Cask Thomson is important because Cask Thomson says so. Fezmar9 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm with Fezmar ... the SPAs advocating Keep are expounding some startling reasons for their stance. That they've seen the guy perform? That he's done charity appearances? Beats me, but a quick glance at Google Australia gives his top rated hits as this article, his MySpace page, his Twitter page, his eBay page, his website, the user-inputted setlist.fm, the user-inputted songlyrics.com, his YouTube site and his Facebook site, in that order. A Google News Australia search turns up ZERO hits. Certainly this guy is hell-on-wheels as a self-promoter, but before the article can be kept, the SPAs suggesting that reliable sources certifying his notability exist must produce those sources. Period.  Ravenswing  20:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ravenswing; subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO as I can find no significant coverage for this person in reliable sources.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete looking at the article and gnews there is a complete lack of reliable sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a featured artist with Thirdmile Media and was once featured on iTunes store a little while back, certainly citations are needed but this page does not lack as badly as other articles found on the English Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.235.1 (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — 110.33.235.1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep you will also see that he was featured on Amazon and Cduniverse in 2010 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=CASK+THOMSON&x=17&y=21 and http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=8184427 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.235.1 (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one !vote per editor. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep under the terms of notability with endorsement deals, artist pages and tours with notable artists. Coverage in reliable sources are found offline which makes things a little hazy but still verify notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thonder (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Thonder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep - Artist with Amazon Online and has toured extensively with Hillsong United and has been a session guitarist with notable acts. Also a quick search of the Myspace page shows over one million plays within one year. Artist was also a featured artist on Myspace and Purevolume. I nominate the wikipedia article to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Death2dust (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — Death2dust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep - Large background of support by Guitar manufactures and accessory manufacturers, seems to have a dependent following with Australian radio Today FM and Hope 103.2 and his music videos have appeared on Rage on ABC Television. Seems to confirm some sort of notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.227.71 (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC) — 110.33.227.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Please note The definition of notability here is that contained in Wikipedia's policies, not in your dictionary. Please look at the WP: things people have been quoting to you - these are the policies and definitions that are used here. If you show that you are understanding these, and show how you think the article complies with them, more notice will be taken of your posts. Notability doesn't 'trickle down'. Touring with someone notable, or playing for someone notable, does not necessarily make one notable oneself. MySpace is not regarded as a reliable source, and you will find more details about what are and aren't in WP:RS. I am remaining neutral and hope you will listen to me, and I have completed a sentence in the last paragraph that was hanging. Please check it to see if I've got it right. Peridon (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article devotes much space to mentioning the artists' sponsors, but not to establishing notability. The subject does not appear to meet the applicable notability guidelines as mentioned by the nominator. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the notability guidelines. Nothing significant appears to have changed since the last AFD. Robofish (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• References Added - Artist has charted in Australian Charts, references added to support claims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.227.71 (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the sources you added are reliable (one is actually a Wikipedia mirror). VQuakr (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can't find a bit of coverage in any mainstream aussie papers. With apologies to those trying to keep it, he's just not where the notability bar lies.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Seems self-promotional, no reliable sources, should be speedy deleted if recreated next time. --John KB (talk) 07:52, 17 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. BigDom 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Jones-Evans[edit]

Angela Jones-Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Political candidate yet to be elected and currently fails WP:POLITICIAN article may be recreated if and when she is elected. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree. Even if she was running for a seat in the House of Commons, she still wouldn't be automatic. Mandsford 21:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to National Assembly for Wales election, 2011). I do not see notability apart from being a candidate. User Glamorgan (talk · contribs) is posting a string of articles about Conservative party candidates for this election, but WP:POLITICIAN is there expressly to prevent this sort of use of Wikipedia as an election noticeboard. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per past outcomes interpreting our guidelines on politicians. In this case, a candidate for the House of Commmons is not notable, absent outside notoriety. If you can convince me that her business activites as a businesswoman are notable, then I will change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a major party candidate so it should be allowed. It's not like the candidate is representing an obscure party. If this doesn't meet the criteria, the criteria are flawed. Let's be reasonable. Maybe break a few rules. Suzukix (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine how many articles there would be if we decided that any "major party candidate" who was running, or had ever run, for any national (or, in this case) subnational political office was entitled to their own article? It's bad enough that we have automatic pages for persons who have won an election to serve as state or provincial legislators, and in that respect, I think the criteria are flawed, but those are the rules. We're not the host site for the Conservative Party, nor for Labour, nor the GOP, the Democratic, the Social Democrats, Christian Socialists, etc. Mandsford 13:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I do occasionally see someone try to argue that "major party candidates should be notable", but that's not policy and most Wikipedians don't agree with it. Count me in the latter group. Simply running for office does not make a person notable. Indeed, if the incumbent is thoroughly entrenched, sometimes only a nobody is willing to run against him/her! --MelanieN (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no real coverage outside of running for political position, that in itself does not make one notable. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 16 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odlotowewakacje.com[edit]

Odlotowewakacje.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Substub on a dot com business website, without any proof of notaiblity. Unreferenced, first and only edit of a new user, prod nom removed by an anon shortly afterwards. Seems like WP:SPAM or related... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was also included in the Bilateral relations sorting, which I do not understand. Anyway, speedy delete.--TM 13:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That listing was by mistake. It has been reverted. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An online travel agency without any indication that it has ever done anything with historical, technical, or cultural significance. Using the word "e-tailer" results in an automatic penalty of -10 points of notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable website. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only coverage in reliable sources I was able to find was this passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 11 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. BigDom 20:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Grey[edit]

Veronica Grey (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, in its previous form, little more than a promotional vehicle for a non-notable person who has appeared in a pilot and had a number of uncredited appearances. The only information that can be somewhat reliably gleaned comes from the IMDB, and it indicates non-notability. That she is a "modern day muse" and a "a trusted authority in the field of anti-aging and self help" (from that previous version) are unverified claims. I foresee some rebuttal that may be long on text but short on references; I urge contributors here to focus on the BLP mandate of providing reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Repeating what I said at the last AfD: IMDB entry indicates tiny number of non-significant roles, biography is self-penned by subject. Publications appear to be vanity press imprints. Overall, appears not to meet WP:BIO. Reads like self-written promotion. (Arguably this could have been speedied as G4 or A7 but what the heck.... )Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, a claim to notability was made, and the history had some back and forths, so I figured I'd bring it here. Note: Kim first nominated the article for AfD, two years ago. I've notified every editor who contributed to the current article, except for the IPs who had nothing to contribute but BLP violations. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, poorly written page. Tinton5 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Right now she doesn't seem to meet the notability standards and there isn't enough material on her in other sources to really improve the page. The article can always be recreated if the situation changes. Millahnna (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems to be some notable sources.98.151.53.27 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep look at this: a photo of her hanging with Steven Spielberg: [3]. Steven Spielberg! --MoonLichen (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fan cruft of a non-notable actress launched by an editor that's cruising to get banned, judging by the edit summary. Veronica credits her relationship with Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins as her rock and roll high school. is my favorite line from the piece — but it was lost in the process of being stubbed out. Of course that's not appropriate for Wikipedia, but either is a bio on this subject, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ENT and the GNG. My relationship with Joan Jett would have been my rock&roll PhD, but that restraining order she got kept me away from graduation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. I had her take it out on you because you were a much better guitar player than me. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's what the "artist" in question thinks of Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veronica_Grey&oldid=41801581998.151.53.27 (talk) 05:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES - in cases where the subject is marginally notable, and she wishes not to be on Wikipedia, the article has been deleted in the past. We don't want to get Jimbo Wales involved in this as he did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ely. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - simple WP:NACTOR fail, nothing to see here. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 15 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 delete. WP:CSD#G7 deletion requested by author. JohnCD (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ra[edit]

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

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

As far as I can tell, this is masked self-promotion from an ultimately non-notable person. Please note that basically all of the references are links to either YouTube, DeviantArt, blogs, discussion boards, or Daniel's own company SlashTHREE (none of which qualify as WP:RS). The list of awards he's received seems like resume padding to me, but then again I'm not sure so that's why it's at a full AfD. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a minimum of at least three publications on internationally accredited magazines. Also posts which refer back to Deviant Art and or Behance, feature competitions and or notifications listed by staff and or those sponsored by well accredited corporations such as ADOBE and NVIDIA (meaning they do qualify as WP:RS). Behance and DA harbor well over 300,000 members and have been around for a decade. They are multi-million dollar companies as of today. The international design collective known as SlashTHREE also garners over a million hits per exhibit, and features some of the top designers from across the globe. They have been known for collaborations with such huge facets like ENVATO. They will be representing in the OFFF (biggest international design event)conference in July. Also those "not so credible" discussion boards, one of which sold last year for $40,000 (planet renders), and again they are postings created by staff. These discussion boards, have rather high Alexa scores as well. Another thing, SlashTHREE is not a company, and is not owned by Daniel. Also a Google search of Daniel Ra, is misleading seeing as there is another person besides the Daniel Ra mentioned within this article that shares that name. This article has been up for several months now, and has undergone multiple revisions and criticisms, has even been tagged for review and has passed. This article fulfills requirements since it shows that Daniel has won a national award per requirements (in fact he has won 2 notable awards and has been publicized on more than one accredited magazine.) Also there are actually 15 sources, but the implementation was incorrect, and it somehow duplicated the sources. 15 sources, 6-7 of which are credible, more than enough to meet the requirements. There are some minor flaws that can be edited and cleaned up, but overall this article meets the requirements, and demonstrates credibility, well written as well. Also, "resume padding"? The boy is a Biology major, most of the things listed in his article has no place in a medical/science resume. If there are further complications pertaining to this article, please tag for review. I don't think this discussion need go further.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abablitz (talk • contribs) 07:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Daniel, but this discussion does need to go further. Hence, an AfD nomination. If it passes, then so be it. If not, then it will get taken off. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sorry, Abablitz, but there's too much chaff there. First off, the article's been up for six weeks, not for "several months" ... but were it up for the entire history of Wikipedia, it still would not thereby get a free pass from meeting the requirements of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Secondly, I strongly recommend you review the links given at WP:PILLAR, which will get you a better understanding of those policies and guidelines. For one thing, the pertinent guidelines - WP:GNG and WP:BIO - don't simply require that reliable sources mention the subject; they require that the subject be discussed in "significant detail." Even presuming that Advanced Photoshop and Our USA magazines qualify as reliable sources - which I don't, and I'm typing this next to the periodical room at the Boston Public Library - do those publications discuss Mr. Ra in "significant detail?" Or did they simply post his work?

  For another thing, so he's won in-house awards from a couple of software companies. So what? What makes them significant and notable awards? Do you have any reliable sources saying so?

  For a third, I've been a member of devART myself for several years. It's certainly a popular and successful website - with, no doubt, a high Alexa ranking - and many well-known artists patronize it. Belonging no more makes Ra notable than it makes me notable.  Ravenswing  20:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Presuming that Advanced Photoshop and Our USA magazines qualify as reliable sources - which I don't" First of all, Why wouldn't they be reliable? What makes them different from TIME and Newsweek? Popularity? As I recall, the biography is strongly centered around graphic design, and AP and such magazines such as Computer Arts, do have merit. "Significant detail"? How significant? He was featured once in a half page section for "Featured Portfolio". He was then again published in a full page article listing his biography and selection of three pieces. He was then again asked to create a full two page tutorial on one of his pieces.

• Well, they neither of them have Wikipedia articles and they're neither of them found in the collection of the library with the largest public collection (aside from the Library of Congress) in the hemisphere. Among other things, that's what makes them different from Time and Newsweek ... or even from Popular Photography or American Photo. Would you mind telling us where we could find copies of these publications?  Ravenswing  23:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"For another thing, so he's won in-house awards from a couple of software companies. So what? What makes them significant and notable awards?" They were not in-house awards. Secondly, I'm not sure, maybe because those awards were sponsored by multi-billion dollar companies such as ADOBE and NVIDIA, and because those pieces, are or have been featured on their official websites, and or used in their advertisements. Significant or notable awards? Possibly because they were national awards with over 600 competitors. Significant? I guess winning shouldn't be significant, seeing as everyone wins in a competition, correct?

• Let me use some examples from other creative endeavors. For instance, awards from the film industry considered notable are Academy Awards, Emmys, Golden Globes, BAFTAs, the Palme d'Or and the like. There is nothing about "significant and notable" pertaining to the number of competitors entered or the annual revenue of the sponsoring company. That being said, if these awards were so prominent as all of that, wouldn't someone have heard of them? "Daniel Ra" + "NVIDIA" returns ZERO hits [4] on Google News; beyond which, as Ra didn't actually win this award, it wouldn't count anyway. "Daniel Ra" + "Adobe" returns ZERO hits [5] on Google News.  Ravenswing  23:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Belonging no more makes Ra notable than it makes me notable' Third, I would like to point out that your point is completely invalid, as there is a logic flaw. For one the discussion was not about being apart of the community, it was about being known or featured by the community. Secondly, going by your logic, there should not be a difference in terms of notability between Bill Gates and I, seeing as we are both apart of the Washington census, after all we share the same numerical count, correct? Also the difference between Ra and you sir, is that he was featured by staff members and those affiliated with the listed competitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abablitz (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice try. In fact, being a longtime dA user, there are constant in-site features and competitions. None meet any notability bar. As it happens, I just looked up Mr. Ra's dA page, which is, oddly enough, abablitz.deviantart.com (making this, now, a probable WP:COI violation). The site has 20,000 page views, which is astonishingly modest for someone active on the site for five years - the most popular artists have page views well over a million. None of the 9 pieces have ever been cited for a Daily Deviation, the most notable honor on the site and one frequently awarded. Only one piece has broken 200 "favourites," again a very modest mark where popular artists routinely have their works go over a thousand favs in hours. These are numbers that no dA member would claim as noteworthy ... presuming that fame on this particular website translates to passing the bar of WP:GNG or WP:BIO, which it doesn't.  Ravenswing  23:07, 10 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. BigDom 20:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Hysén[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSOCCER — Swedish soccer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Although there's no doubt about the players in the Allsvenskan, Division 2 is at the fourth level in Sweden, something analogous to Class A baseball. Mandsford 20:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here notability doesn't arise from his club association but from the coverage about his status as an out professional player. Hekerui (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A player who only played in the Swedish fourth division is not a professional player. --91.20.88.70 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Basler Zeitung article says so in its title - if you have better info, please cite a reliable source. Hekerui (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hekerui is right that he might qualify under WP:N as a gay athlete who has "come out of the closet", which is still unusual in men's team sports. I had only been looking at this under the subject specific guideline of WP:ATHLETE, which I do not believe would apply. However, I don't see evidence that he's considered to be that notable either in the gay community or among sports fans; and I don't think he would have been interviewed at all, but for having a famous father. Hence, I'd still say delete. Mandsford 00:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:FPL says us that only players who played in the first Swedish division are professional players. That a player who only played in the fourth Swedish division is not a professional player is as self-evident as christmas is not in March. --91.20.62.207 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FPL doesn't say that. It only says that the list includes "fully professional" leagues. Most countries AFAIK don't have a system in which leagues are clearly divided between professional and amateur sports, and in Europe you'll find many professional athletes in the lower leagues. By "professional" here I mean "makes a living by being an athlete", if you have a different definition please let me know.Sjö (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, so not worthy of a seperate article. However, could be worth a mention at Homosexuality in association football. GiantSnowman 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Has been subject of extensive press coverage and this is a rare event in men's football. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: I don't think there's any question as to whether he meets the footy guidelines; he doesn't. He does, however, seem to meet the GNG, which of course trumps the presumptive notability criteria of WP:ATHLETE. That he might not be getting this press coverage if he didn't have a famous father is defensible, but entirely speculative, and certainly irrelevant: WP:GNG doesn't stand and fall on WHY a subject is discussed in reliable sources; only that he is.  Ravenswing  20:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE but certainly does WP:N, the latter clearly supercedes the former. Fully agree with RGTaylor's assessment of the guidelines but for me this is a clearly notable person; regardless of his professional/amateur status he's received a large amount of press coverage and as such should not be deleted on notability grounds. BigHairRef | Talk 00:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Whilst I'm not suggesting that good faith should be discounted, the fact remains that this AfD is the nominator's first edit. They're free not to but I'd quite like to know why the first (and so far only) mainspace edit on their account was making a potentially controversial nomination.BigHairRef | Talk 00:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Covered in media in several countries. I agree that he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE but meets WP:N.Sjö (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Sjo: Covered in media in several countries. --Dispe (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He seems to meet several criteria for minor notability at least: 1) He is one of a handful of professional or professional-trajectory male athletes to come out and has received extensive press coverage for this. 2) His famous family (father is famous former pro athlete, two brothers are also footballers) should be considered a reason to keep him in: e.g. Chastity Bono and Candace Gingrich would hardly be notable for their sexual orientation/gender identification if not for their famous relatives. 3) Even if he doesn't go pro, he may well become an LGBT spokesperson, because of the current media coverage and his name recognition. While that's speculative, he seems notable enough to let this ride out and see whether he's a flash in the pan or someone with minor celebrity staying power 4) I would again raise the question of why this article has been targeted for deletion by an otherwise inactive member. I was shocked when I looked him up to get further information after seeing the coverage, and then saw a big AfD banner splashed across the top of the page. -- Mccajor (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: clearly meets WP:GNG, weather he meets sports specific guidelines is irrelevant. He has multiple articles in the mainstream media of many countries. --MATThematical (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I too looked up this article after seeing the coverage, wanting to find out more about him. I realise Wikipedia isn't an advocacy platform but there may be a lot of young gay people out there who can see this guy as an example and will want to know about him. It remains to be seen what happens in his future career but given what ultimately happened to Justin Fashanu it would be nice to have a positive article on an LGBT footballer. SynEx (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Mccajor (talk · contribs). While undoubtedly he does not meet notability standards on sporting merit his "coming out" has won him extensive media coverage in numerous countries. I say keep. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments made by Mccajor (talk · contribs)  Francium12  01:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest a closure as snow keep as there's no sense to keep this running the full length now with such an overwhelming consensus. Clearly meets WP:GNG now (BBC World Service has interviewed him as well, so that's widespread media coverage) so WP:NSOCCER is superseded. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 09:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I haven't been editing much with my username (reason: I dont want to log out of swedish WP) so thats why my contributions are so few. However I agree with Sjö and others. Danieldnm (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so meets WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:39, 15 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 deleted by Stephen under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half Heroes[edit]

Half Heroes (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 band. (CSD was removed by another editor, so I expect a PROD would go the same way) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 anyway. The speedy was removed by a new user, so it could easily have been re-added. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 10 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Craft[edit]

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

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

Not notable per guidelines for sports people Sitush (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am a substantial contributor (with more to add in coming weeks).

Under Wikipedia:Notability (sports) it states in section 5.1 (College athletes):^[1]This article fulfills requirement since it shows that he won a national award per requirements^[2] (in fact he won 3 notable awards by being selected Big Ten Freshman team, Big Ten Defensive team and Big Ten Sixth Man of the Year. The article links to several sources that support that he has gained national media attention as an individual.

As for the uploaded picture, I should have read before posting. Thank you for deleting it. I'll find an appropriate one to replace. CtrlAltDel60 (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems notable to me, well-referenced with citations from ESPN and Yahoo News, many awards, thus meeting WP:GNG, never mind sports guidelines. Why was this nominated? Please don't bite the newbies. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The citations from ESPN and Yahoo are routine sports coverage debarred from the GNG. As far as his awards go, CtrlAltDel60 is incorrect in claiming that Craft won "national" awards. He did not; he won conference citations, both of which - Yahoo Sports Big Ten Freshman list isn't an official award - do not make the rather extensive and exhaustive list of conference awards for which the College Football wikiproject claim presumptive notability.  Ravenswing  20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said at AfD before, I don't know much about sports. Perhaps the guideline needs to be more specific. Can you cite an similar prior outcomes? I am willing, as always, to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: The guideline is, in fact, extremely specific, in that it links to a list of accepted awards at both the national and conference levels. Now personally I find the list absurdly inclusive, in that it confers presumptive notability on many dozens of players a year, at an amateur level which the other sports Wikiprojects don't come close to enshrining. Follow it down, though, and they cite the official league awards for Player of the Year, Offensive Player of the Year, Defensive Player of the Year, Offensive Linesman of the Year, Defensive Linesman of the Year and Freshman of the Year. Craft won none of these accolades and thus doesn't gain presumptive notability under NSPORTS.  Ravenswing  11:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Extensive citation only to routine trivial news coverage, no significant awards. --Bejnar (talk) 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's already well cited, and with the coverage from the aforementioned awards will be even more so. The awards might not be enough to confer automatic notability, but the media coverage from them should help it further exceed the GNG. matt91486 (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it doesn't even meet the GNG, let alone exceed it. And WP does not deal in "what might happen" - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above: his awards are not "national awards", almost no other recognition outside the whole team. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources go beyond routine coverage because they delve into the subject's life and are not solely about an individual game. See this article and this article from The Plain Dealer, which profile Aaron Craft. He passes Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 18 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. While the majority of commentators (3-1) believe this article should be kept, my call is based at least as strongly on the fact this article does address the question, "Is this subject notable?" Reading the article, I felt that this organization was a significant player in its field. However, I want to echo the comment made by many in this discussion that this article needs more work, especially reliable sources; if this article is nominated again & it has not been improved as noted below, the next Admin may rule differently from me. -- llywrch (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singularity Institute[edit]

Singularity Institute (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 undersourced, somewhat promotional. Article has been around since 2003 and is still in dire shape. An IP tried to nominate this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article may not have been improved a lot in recent times, but the topic seems to be notable. The article already cites a San Francisco Chronicle story about a program it sponsored. Also, in a quick Google search, I found a recent National Public Radio story about the institute and its work: [6]. I haven't added that reference to the article because I don't have a clear enough understanding of the article and subject matter to do a quick add, but it's there for someone else to use. --Orlady (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Undersourced is not the same as notable :¬) There are these news items [7] and these book references [8] Chaosdruid (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not nearly notable enough, well outside the realm of mainstream research on the topic, and article does seem to stink of self-promotion. DaveWF (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE, responsibility for which would seem to migrate to the person taking over a nomination. See Google News hits. Anarchangel (talk) 01:43, 13 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Young Duece[edit]

Young Duece (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 musicians. speedys removed multiple times by a storm of SPA's, so it's time to use a bigger hammer WuhWuzDat 19:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Thanks to this non-stop battle with these "editors" and ending up here, I've actually come across the newspaper article I've been referring to for years. Finally figuring out how to actually use Wikipedia. If the article shows up in Wikipedia's own search tool how is it not credible or notable? Doesn't make sense. Nonetheless, I'll be standing by until the issue is resolved and will return regardless of the decision, eventually. Kevinbarlow (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, refs do not establish notability, and I include the copyvio article scan. Annoying sock drawer to boot. Hairhorn (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, References and extra information establish required notability. Initially, Hairhorn suggested "needs refs for notability, not obviously notable". What isn't obiviously notable? Informative? It's all proof. The article scan can be removed but that too is linked an online URL proving the same matter. Along with the award nominations and production credits. I'll admit, in the beginning the information and structure didn't meet the requirements in order to remain valid. But now everything is clearly in line. The editors wishing to have it removed are more concerned with winning the battle rather than acknowledging fact. Along with the "Traphik" page, whom which this page is proven to be connected to upon reference checking. If some info must be removed by technicality, then so be it. But notability is proven for most information given.

Kevinbarlow (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sorry, I don't see it. The bottom line is this: are there reliable sources which discuss the subject - not more famous acts with whom they've been associated - in "significant detail?" No. There aren't. Certainly a handful of bloggers have, but of them reliable sources do not make.  Ravenswing  20:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call me biased for being a fan, but...

Information confirming the following criteria has been gathered and displayed in order to fulfill Wiki rules:

"A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:"

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

   * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. 10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

"For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:" 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. 2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.

"For composers and performers outside mass media traditions:" 5. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

• • "Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine"**

All taken from WP:MUSIC

This article isn't all about their connection with others, clearly. I say Keep, and if the information doesn't continue to grow then delete at a later time. After all, all content on Wikipedia is user generated. Just because a few "credible editors" on here don't know much about the group doesn't mean that plenty of others around the world don't. Thekiddidit (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Thekiddidit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Reply: Let's review:

  Criterion #1: FAIL. No reliable source discusses the subject in "significant detail." Bloggers do not generally count.

  Criterion #5: FAIL. Their albums are self-released or released through a non-notable indie label.

  Criterion #7: FAIL. No reliable sources have been proffered certifying this.

  Criterion #9: FAIL. They have won no competitions normally considered "major." A Google News search for the "Take Back the Music" competition which is claimed here to be major has ZERO hits [9].

  Criterion #10: FAIL. This has never happened.

  Composer criterion #1: FAIL. See above.

  Composer criterion #2: FAIL. The article doesn't even assert that they did.

  Composer criterion #5: FAIL. No reliable sources have been proffered to back this up.  Ravenswing  11:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' Alright, not gonna debate on whether the sources are notable because I've read and heard about how that ends up at the end of the day. But I will say that I find it funny that Essence Magazine isn't considered notable upon itself. As mentioned, the (first) competition took place in 2006. Therefore, if when searching Google news, you change time period to anywhere between 2006-2008 (when the competitions were held) hundreds of credible sources concerning the competition will show up. -Criterion #9-

For Criterion #1, Ourstage.com is or should be acknowledged as a notable source if they're listed on Wikipedia themselves. Which is where they have a article written in "significant detail" about them. For Criterion #5, although released under indie label, Allmusic.com is said to be to be a credible source according to Wikipedia's own standards, where they're listed as the authors and composers. As composers of lyrics and music, Criteria #1 - though Traphik is considered notable because of his Billboard article, if his only album to date "Rush Hour" (according to Allmusic.com) was entirely produced by them as stated on CDbaby, and released under the same independent label, would this still not be considered notable? After all, it is Billboard's "Uncharted" chart.

Honestly, I'm just pushing the envelope. There are so many twist and turns when it comes to verifying fact on here. It's just funny that one person's judgment can overpower the next when this whole site is supposedly cooperative. Then once contested, it comes down to "notability". Might as well be ran by robots so that debates won't need to take place. You say it's not about a majority vote but that's how it seems. Thekiddidit (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources are not "notable", they are reliable (or not), notability is a term applied to the topic of entries. It's irrelevant to reliablility whether a source is written up in wiki or not. (For example, this is not a reliable source.) As for Allmusic, much of their content is wildly inaccurate, I don't consider them reliable, although others may. Hairhorn (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This group/band does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia - neither generally nor those at WP:MUSIC. There is no independent coverage of the group, none of its music has received any significant award or been on any national charts, the musicians themeselves are not notable, they have not won any major music competition, etc, etc. They appear to be self-promoting and (sorry) just not notable. In short, what we would need to see is someone independent of the group talking about them in a credible publication. Good luck to the boys, but they don't make the notability grade yet. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agreed with the other commenters here that there doesn't seem to be enough here to pass WP:BAND just yet. The third-party coverage, such as it is, isn't from reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not yet ready, inadequate coverage in reliable sources, notability not established. Come back in five years if notability has been gained. --Bejnar (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - insufficient evidence of notability. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:44, 18 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Steel (Comics)[edit]

Detroit Steel (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)

This article is about a minor plot point. The article does not meet notability standards and is an example of recentism Spidey104 18:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A fictional suit of armor with no cited references for notability (and none likely to appear in the immediate future) nor an expansive comic history.Luminum (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability is unlikely to appear in the immediate future. Create a new article if it does (doubtful), but for now it is a useless stub. Kurt Parker (talk) 19:45, 10 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yordan Tushev[edit]

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

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

He doesn't seem to be notable, his club career could be fictitious. Article doesn't include any sources. Oleola (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Searches in Cyrillic: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Bulgarian isn't one of my best languages but I can understand enough to see that some of the sources found by the general web and news searches indicate that the list of clubs in the article may be inaccurate, as they have the subject playing for other clubs in regional leagues than the ones that our article has him playing for at the same times. I have no idea how reliable those sources are. I also can't see anything that clearly indicates that Tushev has played in a fully professional league. I don't know how his name would be written in Greek, so I don't know if there are any Greek sources about his claimed time with Greek clubs. Let's try to get some less linguistically-challenged input. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no record of this person playing for Agrotikos Asteras at epae.org, nor has he played in the A PFG according to stat.pfl.bg (there is a person with the same name who has been on the books of a few B PFG clubs - [10]). Jogurney (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:34, 15 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. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shiply[edit]

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

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

Many citations do not meet the verifiability criteria suggesting the article also, when cleaned up, would not pass the notability criteria.E2daipi (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —E2daipi (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, blatant advertising, not notable in any way. Last version in 2009 was deleted for same reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Entirely unambiguous advertisement for an online business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but not speedy delete. What is the rush? You will just make the creator of the article mad and think he/she was railroaded. Suzukix (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While there has been an issue of conflict of interest with the company editting this article, the content is not in such a shape as to be irredeemable spam. With respect to citations not meeting verifiability, I am unclear on why the nominator believes this to be the case. There are primary sources (company's own web site) and press releases being used. However, the references also include an article in the New York Times which features the company as the primary subject. Ditto for BusinessGreen, The Evening Standard, and The Telegraph, as well as significant coverage in The Times, and The Telegraph. Aside from BusienssGreen, all of these are well-respected major newspapers and certainly represent the reliable sources we would expect for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The intervention of the company appears to be an isolated incident, which did not affect the content of the article. Hopefully, they will learn how we work here on Wikipedia. Orangemike was probably in a rush when he added the COI tag, since the edits of the user Shiply were promptly reverted, with no other significant involvement in the editing of this article. Otherwise, as Whpq mentioned previously, the company is notable, featured in enough reliable sources. I also agree with the comments of the reviewing admin of the first speedy deletion request, considering the article informative, and not particularly promotional. I added some other new sources and I wikified a bit the content. If the others agree, I don't find necessary the current tags. I am not sure about the intentions of the user who requested the deletion. They have no other significant edits except Shiply, for 4 months and they deleted the inquiry of the user Shiply regarding this issue. On the other hand, they notified me about this Afd, as an user who edited this article some time ago, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on. Gatyonrew (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My intentions for the AfD nomination was solely to complete Batoutta's nomination for deletion as they had improperly added {'{subst:afd1}'} rather than {'{subst:afd2}'} and so the article was directing discussion to the incorrect talk page. I asked in the help center-a reason why Gatyonrew was notified of the AfD (the article creator was also notified)-and was given full instructions on how to proceed.

In regards to Shiply's comments on my talk page, is this, to me, a libelous statement and Wikipedia has policies to deal with COI-as Shiply found-so I believe I was right to remove an unsubstantiated claim. If anyone has evidence to substanciate me not having a neutral point of view please follow the correct procedures to block me for COI.

In regards to my verifiability claims for the AfD. This, I believe is a misunderstanding of the definition within Wikipedia and its implications to a NPV. Allow me to explain my understanding.

The verifiability wikipedia policy states here that :

"The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."

My understanding is that three factors are of importance and not one. If only the publisher is considered this means that Whpq is incorrect in their statement to keep based on verifiability? Whpq has just considered one component of three that are relevant. With this being true Whpq's argument of being used by Gatyonrew with respect to "reliable sources" is logically also incorrect.

The reason I make a big point of this is that many of the citations appear to be company press releases badly refactored-if you read the articles in the context of a timeline-and alongside the companies press releases-you will notice some changes in wording that appears similar to the outcome of Chinese whispers. The verifiability of these citations is called into question as badly refactored primary sources by a verifiable publisher does not constitute the aforementioned reliable sources paradigm set out by Wikipedia. Use my talk page or the article's talk page for discussion. Another discussion topic in my opinion is that if a reliable source cites a primary source, is this now reliable? This is a discussion topic based on some citations in the Shiply article.

I understand that my editing of only one article until recently is of concern, but, is this something that a bot should pick up on and notify me of? I do not believe that just editing one article is bad. In fact I refute it as this specialisation may lead to a better outcome in article quality. I am new to Wikipedia-as an editor-and this was an article of interest to me and thus a good place to start. Furthermore, if you revert to before my edits you will see that the article was very-take this as you will-different. My edits have been attempts to cleanup and wikify this article, and as such I hope that my neutrality is not called into question again without any evidence as this is libel.

In regards of the company not affecting the content of the article I disagree as they were reverting changes-ones based purely on verifiable fact-as they have recently concluded a legal "dispute" with another company and they wanted it to be perceived as a complaint and also placed the information further down the page, maybe in an attempt to reduce visibility. The Shiply instance of COI does still affect the article, it is the first reason I went to the help centre; and consequently the reason why Shiply was banned. I had to take these measures as I was close to being automatically blocked based on the Three revert rule. So to remove the COI edits affecting the article the Contraversies section needs to be moved back to its original position, and then if this position is disputed the talk page should be used to discuss and decide upon the correct positioning without the influnce of the CIO user.

Whpq's, you, refute your claim that BusinessGreen is respected? May you decide and edit your vote accordingly?

I do find that many people jumped the guns-so to speak-with their votes for deletion without taking the time to really understand the reasons for the AfD nomination, discuss, and the conclude a keep or delete vote. Is it possible Smerdis of Tlön, TenPoundHammer, and Suzukix could edit their vote with reasons based on the AfD nomination? Should these be deleted as they do not vote with respect to the AfD nomination?

Thanks for the help with the article Gatyonrew, I was getting a bit lonely editing the article [almost] by myself. E2daipi (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Reliable sources are one that are independent and have a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight in the selection of topics to cover. All of the the sources I pointed out that I believe establish notability are such sources. With respect to Business Green, I only pointed out that they aren't a major well-known daily circulation newspaper like the other ones are. With regards to the company editting the article, that really has no bearing on whether we should delete the article. To take an extreme example, if Nike PR people made wholesale changes to the Nike article to paint themselves in a better light and sourced it to their own press releases, would be respond be deleting the article? Of course not, because the subject is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Reliable sources quote

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability.

My point is that three things affect reliability, not one. You vote based on one, and I deem that to be insufficient for your argument to hold. Are these reliable authors? Did these article appear in print also? Is the article consisting of badly refactored primary research?

With respect to the company editing causing COI, yes agreed. When exclusively looking at COI, this alone is not grounds for deletion. I did not state that this, and this alone as the reason for deletion, only one of the reasons for nomination. I will change the position of the controversies-to revert the COI edits-section and post a discussion on the talk page to decide if this is the correct place for it to remain or if a consensus decides it should be positioned elsewhere. I will remove {'{POV|date=March 2011}'} {'{COI|date=March 2011}'} from the article as this is no longer an issue, and remove the COI reasoning from this nomination.

When the issue of verifiability is solved I believe the AfD process will be complete? E2daipi (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply - I !voted based on these sources meeting the definition of reliable sources. Researching the history of the author of the New York Times article is way beyond what is necessary to establish it as reliable sources. If you truly, and honestly believe that an article from the New York Times does not meet our definition of a reliable source, you are welcome to post at the Reiable sources noticeboard. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Borderline keep. It did get some media attention. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The significant coverage in reliable sources found by Whpq (talk · contribs) allows the company to pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 22:57, 18 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. BigDom 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Adams[edit]

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

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

Ineligible for PROD due to a previous one in 2009 that I somehow missed. Completely unreferenced, and from what I can tell does not meet the WP:GNG. An assertion was made during de-prodding that he meets WP:ATHLETE (for the little that's worth if a player doesn't meet the GNG), but based on the information I've seen I don't believe that he meets ATHLETE either. —WFC— 17:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't even seem to find any verification that this person played for Bohemian FC. If he did, then I think that would satisfy wp:ATHLETE, but I feel that unless there are some good sources that I can't find then this article should be deleted anyway, since I think wp:ATHLETE is too inclusive; Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails subject specific criteria as league is not fully professional, and this player did not set it alight in his day so I do not see claim to notability--ClubOranje^T 09:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:14, 15 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 Hunt for Red October (film). (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn to Red October[edit]

Hymn to Red October (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A few hits in Google News, and a few mentions in Google Books--but nothing to base an article on, and not--in this editor's opinion--adding up to notability. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to The Hunt for Red October (film). There's nothing obviously notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it can add a reasonable bit of detail to the film article. LadyofShalott 05:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • True dat--I couldn't object to a merge and redirect. Perhaps I should have done that myself, come to think of it. For now, I'll let the AfD ride. Thank you Lady. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect We don't need articles for individual movie tracks. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 19:09, 4 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, Stifle (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per the others. Seems like everything about this can be conveyed in the film's article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:15, 15 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. BigDom 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Marwood[edit]

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

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

Contest PROD, reason being was "Meets WP:FOOTY notability. Currently plays for a fully professional club (http://www.gateshead-fc.com/2809/bogie-hails-historic-day) at a national level of the league structure (Conference National)."

However, WP:NFOOTY states he has to play at a fully-professional level, which the Conference National is not as there are a handful of clubs that are still semi-professional and mentions nothing about being at a national level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage, beyond the standard WP:NTEMP match reports and club website info. --Jimbo^[online] 15:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Conference National is not fully pro, and he fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable footballer. A shame really because it's a decent article, but he doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL and hasn't done enough to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:14, 10 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. BigDom 16:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V. N. Reddy[edit]

V. N. Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.

• Comment. Article is about a cinematographer from India. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are multiple sources attesting to Reddy's work on at least one notable film. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are various sites that show Reddy's work as a cinematographer. What could be the problem? Verification is also quiet strong for the documents through its sources. Sandhya.palanki (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandhya.palanki (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His films are notable, than he is notable. I see results for him in a Google news search, but no need to go through that, since he already meets WP:ENTERTAINER Dream Focus 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The others above have said what is needed to be said. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources are strongly weighing for and on V. N. Reddy's side. Rest all is said above, nothing more to say. Drpngupta (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Seems a shame that poor references are being used for a notable topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What is poor about a reference to the Encyclopaedia of Hindi cinema, published by Encyclopaedia Britannica, that was in the article at the time of nomination and describes the subject as a major cinematograher of the black-and-white and early colour period? Or about a source published by Michigan State University that picks out one of the subject's works as one of the six most significant Indian films of the 1940s? An obvious keep, and, I would think, a speedy keep based on the fact that the nominator has not provided a deletion rationale beyond "not notable", which means "I think this article should be deleted because I think it should be deleted". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't be serious. India: Encyclopaedia Britannica was used in the article only to support the fact that his name is V. N. Reddy. The rest of the references were either weak or non reliable sources - moviediva.com, asia.isp.msu.edu ( a constant work in progress for K-12), passionforcinema.com, www.imdb.com. At the time of AfD nomination, the article was an insult to this man. Who ever did this should be ashamed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator is a newbie and looks like a family member. This was the version that was AfDed - an excellent attempt for a first article. With so many blue linked movies mentioned, tagging this as "non-notable" was the insult. And saying that the newbie "should be ashamed" for trying to create an article with references and formatting is much worse. Have we lost all sense of perspective that we are now trying to shame newbies for attempting to create articles?-Sodabottle (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep VN Reddy is "non notable". really? Can someone close this already as a speedy keep--Sodabottle (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep in complete agreement with the above. We do not delete what is notable and can be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 12:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cinematographer of many hit movies. Salih (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per others' clarifications. He is notable enough in the Indian film industry.Hillcountries (talk) 03:35, 12 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. BigDom 16:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factory Guards[edit]

Factory Guards (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 a useful redirect. Created and maintained mostly by a banned User:Yongle the Great and his sockpuppets. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 13:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Am I correct that this used to redirect to Ming Dynasty? That's really weird. I would favor simply changing the name of the page to factory guard and making it redirect to nightwatchman and calling it good. Actually, I'm just going to make that new redirect page now and vote delete here, which is simple enough. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hello? The notice that you added to the top of the article? "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed" Anarchangel (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I missed that. I've restored the redirect. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) _{contact me (聯絡)} 03:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a useful redirect either to "Ming Dynasty" or to "Night watchman". --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, not a useful redirect. Yongle the Great is a continual problem, btw. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 16 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. BigDom 16:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provanhall[edit]

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

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

Incorrectly nominated for Speedy Deletion by User:Blairtummock for following reason:

"this is not an area of Glasgow but part of a district. It does not have a history or identity separate from the Easterhouse dirstict of which it is part. The page has been live for 3 years yet has no content"

Not a valid criterion, so posting this here for debate. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has a Primary School, a Housing Association, press articles refer to people being from Provanhall, etc. There is also the 15th century Provanhall House itself, contemporaneous with the oldest house in Glasgow itself. While there may be an argument for a redirect to Easterhouse, a development of the historical angle could unbalance and then outgrow the Easterhouse article so better to retain as free-standing. AllyD (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AllyD. It has an identity distinct from Easterhouse and there is the potential for expansion. --Deskford (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep again, as per AllyD. It's not quite true that in three years there's been no content added... there's an infobox that I added four months ago. It should be expanded though. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 07:44, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican WhiteBoy[edit]

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

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

A novel. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Author doesn't have a page, and I can't find any other signs of notability for this book. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per references added, notability established and general betterment of article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was hoping to avoid this. This article is part of a school project, finishing up next Monday. I've been trying to persuade people to hold off on deletion actions like this until after the project ends. The students are, as part of the assignment I believe, supposed to get the articles up to levels where they meet our article criteria. If after Monday the criteria are not met, then IMHO it would be open season for AFDs on those that do not. But I wanted to give the students this week as a chance to show the notability or not. All the articles in this assignment are likely to be heavily edited during this coming week, and if the students do their work right, likely will look quite different a week from now to what they look like now. So IMHO AFDs on the articles in this project, during this week, are premature. I do not know yet whether this one will turn out notable or not. It's just... premature. Sigh. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable novel. I heartily endorse the school project aspect. One would hope that instruction in Wikipedia notability practices is part of that project, however. This is essentially a book report detailing the plot of a work of juvenile fiction — not close to the "keep" line unless it's a best-seller of some sort... Carrite (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this book is clearly notable, and I think deletion should be avoided. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I let the teacher of the school project know about this debate, and stressed to him/her that he/she should, instead of rushing here to !vote keep, should ASAP work to show that the book has notability. This has been done. Between the awards and reviews now listed, I believe that notability has been established. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The cluster of minor awards and significant coverage in secondary sources, including NYT, are enough for notability. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG per sources added by User:Roseclearfield. Also may be worth noting that, based on the available on-line material and the off-line material cited in this article, the author of this book is notable (multiple books with awards and significant coverage) and should have his own page. Kudos to the class for their positive contributions and to TexasAndroid and others for their patience and good faith in helping this project. Having said that, it is certainly understandable why this article was brought to AfD based on its initial condition; based on the discussions at User talk:Roseclearfield#ANI discussion and at ANI, do I correctly gather that next year the class will develop any new articles, like this one, in user space until they have enough content to survive the sometimes jagged rocks of Wikiprocedure?--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roseclearfield, the teacher of the class in question, has said that, yes, she plans to handle things a bit differently next year. And more User space drafts is one of the things she has explicitly stated that she is likely to use. I think that this experience has been as much a lesson for her on Wikipedia as it has been for her students. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable, as indicated by added references. Dr Aaij (talk) 18:36, 11 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 Closed timelike curve#Contractible versus noncontractible and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timelike topological feature[edit]

Timelike topological feature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A concept of doubtful notability, quite trivial from mathematical point of view (at least at the present extent). Delete it, or redirect to Wormhole#Time travel. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nomination. Trivial from a mathematical point of view, and not well-defined from a physical point of view. However, the interaction between global non-causality and local causality may be worth a sentence or two in some article on relativistic time travel. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There are much more than two sentences in the article Causality conditions and linked articles, notably Globally hyperbolic manifold. Mainstream mathematical physics does not miss this topic by no means. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think "concept" is too strong a word; the article is a trivial remark, an aside that you might give in a lecture. Ozob (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Arthur Rubin. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Closed timelike curve#Contractible versus noncontractible. That section discusses exactly this point (with the same source). No need for a separate article.TR 09:59, 10 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 Prostitution and the law. T. Canens (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Abolition of Prostitution[edit]

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

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

Basically an essay, not sure what this contributes that's not already presented at Prostitution and the law. If there is anything here that's salvageable it could be merged there. TJ Black (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete essay. Adequately coverd in the article cited by nom. MLA (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks like a term paper. Prostitution and the law isn't all it should be (the footnote section is a complete mess for openers), but it is the established page on this basic topic and this page is therefore a content fork. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. –Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Though it does look like an essay, there are some valuable references and information in there. I've started merging some of the content into Prostitution and the law. I'm not totally sure that it is a content fork: abolitionism is a valid position one can take on prostitution and it is a qualitatively different public policy approach to traditional prohibition or liberalisation approaches. I'm not sure if Prostitution and the law is the best place for it: perhaps we need a new article summarising the different policy approaches that are possible to prostitution. I think the answer is to assume good faith and try our hardest to guide the content in this article into the best places for it. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - It is necessary to keep pages on the women questions. There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to eliminate its pages....Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and female editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Wikipedia: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?. It is necessary to preserve this page and to improve it. Thanks, merci --Geneviève (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that I buy the idea that Wikipedia needs relaxed notability requirements or forgiveness of content forks for articles dealing with women's issues. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's a really bad idea, as good intentioned as the thought may be that WP needs better coverage of such matters and more participation from female editors. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The idea that to keep women on Wikipedia, ideologically-motivated feminists must be given special dispensation from NPOV and other rules of Wikipedia is foolishness at its very worst. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is a serious issue on Wikipedia, I'd suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias as a starting point for constructive ways to address it. This article is a presentation of a specific viewpoint on prostitution, it's not a woman's viewpoint in any universal way - some women may or may not share this view as easily as men. We do have Feminist views on prostitution which may be more along the lines of what you're thinking, though that is specifically feminist views, not representative of all women either. TJ Black (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - to upgrade Prostitution and the law where appropriate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the useful bits to other articles such as Prostitution and the law. This article's tone is prescriptive, not descriptive; it seeks to change the world rather than describe it. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that there was a legalization movement in the mid-1800s countered by an abolitionist movement, and U.S. suffrage proponent Susan B. Anthony was on the fence on the issue until about 1870 when she threw her weight on the abolition side. Both sides had good arguments. There's plenty of material that can be put into an article on the subject, but not at all in the vein of what we are discussing for deletion. Just about all the text under discussion should be thrown out. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge (and later restore if appropriate).Weak keep and rescue (per my comment below) This is a clear essay which nonetheless has substantial value. For now, the most appropriate target is Feminist views on prostitution and secondarily (mainly "the Nordic model" material) prostitution and the law. Note that feminist activism (as opposed to just views) in support of sex workers gets space at Sex workers' rights. It's entirely legitimate to create say Feminist activism against prostitution, which is probably a more accurate description of the wide range of activism, legal moves, and philosophies described here. However, I doubt the essay concerns would be addressed by just moving the article.--Carwil (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Essay. Too complicated to merge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there probably should be a separate article with this title, actually, although not with the current content. Our treatment of this subject as it relates to English-speaking countries belongs in Prostitution and the law, but there's also room for a separate treatment on the historic social movement for abolition of prostitution in the German-speaking world, which was called Abolitionismus (Prostitution) (link is to de.wiki). A direct translation of the de.wiki article would be called "Abolition of Prostitution". So, even though I don't see it as necessary to keep the current content, I don't think this should be a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best way would be to start a section on history of abolitionist efforts in Prostitution and the law and then see if there's enough material/support for its own article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it would, actually. Prostitution in Germany's incredibly different because of their culture. I don't think it's ever been illegal to buy or sell sex there, and I think all the major cities have large and well-advertised brothels. The kind of establishments that offer loyalty cards and discounts for the elderly. I only really looked into it briefly while translating a biography for Lida Gustava Heymann (an influential German anti-prostitution campaigner in the 1930s), but I have the impression that this might be best treated as a separate subject from scratch. Mind you, it's tangential to the AfD. I have no axe to grind about whether the present content is deleted or merged—I really just want to establish whether it'll be okay to reuse the article title.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume it'd be redirected, to either Prostitution and the law or Feminist views on prostitution. Presumably someone could create a new article at some later date if a reasonable article could be written. TJ Black (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I think the page accurately describes the abolition of prostitution movement. Abolition of prostitution is based on facts and research, and is a global movement so, perhaps a modification to reduce “essay” features is needed. nmw3 (talk) 2:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — nmw3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, it's an essay, does not adhere to a NPOV, and is essentially using Wikipedia as a soapbox. BurtAlert (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete/Merge depending on content. Most of this is WP:SOAPBOX and really should be dropped rather than merged. (Also, please note that its presentation of prostitution research, while referenced, is extremely one-sided.) However, the topic is a valid one, and the "prostitution abolitionist" movement is one with a long history (albeit, not covered at all in this article) and considerable political influence currently, and hence, a large enough topic for its own article. However, I think once this article is stripped down to the non-soapboxy essentials, there will be little left, and the content is best merged rather than left as a stub or incomplete article. If sufficient quality content is generated on this topic for its own article, I suggest the title Abolitionism (prostitution), which would parallel usage of specialized movements calling themselves "abolitionist" that are not the same as the more generally accepted definition of movement to abolish slavery, per Abolitionism (disambiguation). Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - While I am new to this process and not entirely sure how these decisions are ultimately made, I of course, think this article should be kept. I want to answer the original criticisms from Iamcuriousblue. I can take the point about merging some of the content with the main prostitution article, especially the stats about violence before and after entry into prostitution, race/colonisation and prostitution, and money earned in prostitution, which are severely under-studied and under-reported in prostitution research generally. Certainly, I can also agree about adding a history section - in fact it's a great suggestion. However, to claim that this article should somehow discuss the prostitution abolition movement without discussing the abolitionist position on prostitution itself is a bit ridiculous. An abolitionist perpective on prostitution is the reasoning behind the movement. This page is clearly labeled as an enclopedic entry about the Abolition of Prostitution. This is a global movement and a serious philosophy/politic in regards to prostitution that even exists in law in some countries, most notably Nordic countries. Though, I agree with another commenter above that this article cannot simply be added to the page on Prostitution and the Law as the range of topics is much broader than law or legal approaches to prostitution, as the movement is itself. Describing the research cited as purely abolitionist or somehow ultimately flawed through bias is to neglect both the validity of the research, which is by and large published in academic journals, UN and governmental/inter-governmental reports and by recognized NGOs. This argument also somehow presents the research cited here as more biased than any other research on prostitution. Prostitution and the legal/social approaches we should take to it are seriously under argument at the moment, as this discussion reveals. All prostitution research contains bias one way or another. The bias of prostitution researchers is revealed mostly in the questions they ask. Wikipedia is currently host to other entries discussing other perspectives on prostitution, some of which have their own pages, and should be host to a page with abolitionist perspectives. As the prostitution pages are set up now, they reveal primarily legal approaches. There is much more to know about prostitution than legal approaches to it. Adding the range of other information that can be and is known (and debated) about prostitution has the potential to make those page unwieldy and confusing. Branches are necessary. Abolitionism is a legitimate one. Discussing abolitionism requires a discussion of abolitionist perspectives on prostitution. Some content can be merged. Ultimately, though, the page should remain substantially intact and in existence. Abolitionista2011 1:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC) — Abolitionista2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: The article as it is written not only presents an abolitionist perspective, but presents controversial research claims as if they were established fact. And, yes, I do mean to call into question the validity of research of abolitionist oriented scholars. There are many people critical of the research of abolitionists like Melissa Farley, who's methods are problematic, to put it mildly, and seem to basically be formalizations of a priori conclusions. The flaws in such research were noted recently in the Bedford v. Canada decision: [11]. (And I will also point out that just because a piece of research manages to find its way into an academic journal (of which there are many, with a wide variety of standards of what they'll accept), or more especially, an NGO or government report does not validate something as incontrovertible truth. There are many published papers making claims that are not widely accepted.) Hence, I think research claims about prostitution belong another article, and controversial claims need to be presented in a balanced way. I also want to note that the way the article was written basically ignored the clear rules and guidelines set out in WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. An article about a particular position must not represent advocacy of that position, nor should it be an attack on it. A neutral presentation of a that position including criticisms of it is what is called for. This is true of any Wikipedia article on any political position, and I fail to see how prostitution abolitionism should be any different. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw particular attention to this point in particular under Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view:

• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Iamcuriousblue (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The current situation is undesirable. We have Prostitution which gives only a brief précis of the different attitudes to prostitution, and then we've got Prostitution and the law, which is fine but doesn't seem the right place to explain the political/moral debate over the legality of prostitution. The closest place to merge would be Feminist views on prostitution. But what about non-feminist perspectives? The debate about the legal status of prostitution isn't just a debate that goes on within feminist circles: it's something that goes on at a national political and international level, as well as a law enforcement level. It would seem better to have an article that goes into depth on the political views regarding prostitution that could cover both feminist views and things like law enforcement views (I'm sure there are views amongst police and other law enforcement officials over the status of prohibitionism vs. abolitionism vs. legalization, and efficient use of law enforcement and prison budgets and so on). Rather than make a dramatic change, I've moved it over into my user space: User:Tom Morris/Attitudes towards Prostitution, with the intention that once it is ready, we can create it as a new article. I've pulled in a mixture of stuff from the existing articles, and it would be useful if bits of the Abolition of Prostitution article were moved in, and people could make suggestions. That way we might be able to find an amicable resolution to this AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello Everybody, my opinion : why to try to put everything all text in a one single article ??? The prostitution is a very vast subject both in its history , Laws and legal approaches, and of its social positions and political movement ( "prostitution abolitionist") . Why not to put 2 articles in internal link as we spank it... by example wikipedia pages for women sports (example the Women hockey in Sweden: we have 2 pages: Swedish women's national ice hockey team and Women's ice hockey in Sweden... same in Finland and in several countries). I wish a good weekend for all --Geneviève (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I dont see no reason for deleting or merging this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The editors who have made this article have put a lot of work into describing arguments and philosophies, which is awfully useful for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, a lot of points of view are stated, rather than attributed, which is why so many of us are skeptical about turning this into a NPOV, encyclopedic article. The alternative is to improve this article, by attributing POV, noting where POVs are opposed by others, and grounding the opinions in some actual political actors. The big missing piece right now is the movement itself. It's not enough to have the citations of some advocates and a big list at the end. Who is the movement? Where are they? What laws are they advocating for? Note also that there's a pretty rocking article at Prostitution in Sweden on the Swedish model, which looks more comprehensive than what is presented here. To those who are urging merge/delete (and I did above), I urge you/us to give this article a bit more time, since describing a movement with a POV is completely legitimate on Wikipedia. To those who are committed to editing it, please check out the five pillars of Wikipedia and improve it. The sooner that is done, the more likely it can be kept instead of recreated later.--Carwil (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is about a political/human rights movement. Hence a separate article/subject. Notability was established by sources.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are serious problems with this article in its present form. Even if there is no consensus to delete, this article cannot remain in its current form and biased, soapboxy content will need to be ruthlessly edited, even if it means knocking this article back to a stub. I also highly recommend that if this article is not removed to use the title Abolitionism (prostitution), in keeping with the usage in Abolitionism (disambiguation). Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: This article is an important addition. It presents information not available on the other pages relating to prostitution. For instance, on the Prostitution and the Law page, Sweden, Iceland and Norway are listed under a "Prostitution illegal" category along with many other countries that have vastly different legislative models. It's quite inaccurate to list these countries in one category as if they have the same or similar laws. As another example, the definition of abolitionism on the Prostitution page is confusing, and one that most abolitionists would not agree with.
  
  This article is well referenced. You are kidding yourself if you think there's such thing as controversial vs uncontroversial research findings or clearly established facts vs not clearly established facts. All research is performed by researchers who have their own perspectives and opinions that inform the research. All research has its limitations. The great thing about this article is that there are many references so that readers can look at the sources themselves.
  
  Finally, I think this article is actually much more neutral than other pages relating to prostitution on wikipedia. For instance, I don't even agree with the first sentence on the Prostitution page, yet it is listed as fact. I think that page is actually much more agenda-pushing than the abolition of prostitution page. Your perception of something as neutral is likely strongly positively correlated with what you agree with. This is an excellent page that adds something not covered by the other pages. --Lauramjo — Lauramjo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: If you think the page as it stands is even remotely in line with WP:NPOV, you're either kidding yourself or have no understanding of NPOV. Perhaps the fact that you're one of the authors of this page has something to do with your assessment of the article as it stands? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is an ugly mess right now and reeks of a POV fork, but it could be fixed within editing norms, and has plenty of sources. In accord with Iamcuriousblue, it should be re-named in any case. Perhaps incubation or userfication would work for this one. There has been more of an effort to add feminism topics. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge The title by itself proclaims one side of a controversy. This type of material can be more equitably handled in a balanced manner in an article such as Prostitution and the law. Not all of the material here will be suitable for merging, but that which is appropriate can be, and some of the rest can inform balanced additions to that article. I essentially agree with CarolMooreDC. --Bejnar (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quick google seach readily shows that this is is a well-known topic. However the article must be brought to wikipedia standards. Some content may be moved into other articles on the subject, while other content must be better sourced. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 22:54, 18 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) 15:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chayanan Pombuppha[edit]

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

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find anything to verify this guy. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found some sources that indicate that he played in a FIFA sanctioned friendly against South Africa in May 2010, so he passes WP:FOOTYN as a Thai international player. I'll update the article now. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Argyle 4 Life, now shown to be a verifiable international footballer.--ClubOranje^T 22:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a Thai international, he passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep assuming that the source is reliable, he meets the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 03:01, 18 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) 15:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sittisak Tarapan[edit]

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

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

Unsourced BLP, can't find anything to verify this guy. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Keep. Per source provided by ClubOranje. Argyle 4 Life^talk 19:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Thai Premier league is listed as a fully professional league at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues and ref provided to show he has played there. Article needs improving not deleting.--ClubOranje^T 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per ClubOranje. The source listed confirms that he has played in the Thai Premier League, meaning he passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:43, 15 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somrit Ornsomjit[edit]

Somrit Ornsomjit (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 find any proof this guy even exists after looking through both english and translated thai results. Can't have someone on here who's unverifiable. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if he does exist, he has not made an appearance in a professional game, and thus fails WP:NFOOTY. Since there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, the article also fails WP:V. Tooga - BØRK! 12:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Tooga - BØRK! 12:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - His club appearances would be insufficient to grant notability even if they were verified. If he had played for the Thai national team, he would be notable, but as the nominator pointed out, there is no evidence of that. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources provided below. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 12:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think... This Thai blog, while not a WP:RS, lists a player of this name as having scored twice in the 1994 Asian Games against Uzbekistan and scoring against India in 1995. RSSSF, which is a reliable source, confirms a Somrit scoring against India, and confirms a Somrit Ornsomchit (slightly different transliteration) scoring twice against Uzbekistan. Google-translating this Hanoi news source gives a 33-year-old "former national team striker Somrit Ornsomchit Thailand" signing for a Vietnamese club in 2004. Assuming it's the same person, he passes WP:NFOOTBALL as a Thai national team player. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Struway, verifiable international footballer passes WP:NFOOTBALL--ClubOranje^T 23:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Source has been added. Tooga - BØRK! 00:54, 14 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. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland Astronomical Society[edit]

Sutherland Astronomical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:ORG. unreferenced. gnews reveals mainly event listings. 7 hits in 30 years of existence is hardly significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-established local science organization. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

being "well established" is not the same as meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability presented.--Grahame (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN per WP:ORG. Local doesn't cut it either; needs national or international scope or profile. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but additional references recommended. Fotaun (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE no explanation given as to how WP:ORG is met. LibStar (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The long history of this organization in astronomy and availability of multiple third-party references seems to make this a poor candidate for deletion, or at least cast reasonable doubt on the process. Fotaun (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. But if the closer is considering Delete, re-consider Merge and redirect to a sentence or more at National Australian Convention of Amateur Astronomers, or a new article on such societies in Australia. Per WP:PRESERVE. -84user (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to say Keep. I added references to verify the three discoveries (two comets and a nova) by members of the society. Failing that, merge as per 84user. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 6 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 05:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it has external references and some evidence of notability (new discoveries). Frankly, I don't know what we would gain by deleting it. Tom Harris (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM argues that we should pay attention to notability and reliable sources, which my comment also addressed. It's not particularly helpful or friendly to simply throw policy pages around as blunt arguments, particularly when they don't apply. Tom Harris (talk) 15:23, 10 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. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonian time in economics[edit]

Newtonian time in economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Long-term unimproved article that is badly referenced, downright confusing, and perhaps WP:FRINGE? Was tagged for speedy-G1 by an IP, but given the age of the article I believe AfD is the better course, so here we are. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Time - I've read this article 3 or 4 times and it seems like gibberish. Maybe the topic is notable, but this article is unintelligible. --GrapedApe (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it's worth redirecting, it's worth deleting per CSD R3, and it's worth deleting as fringe and for lack of reliable sources. --Selket ^Talk 10:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is a concrete example of physics envy. Some books [12] and papers [13] on the subject. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - appears to be a relatively frequently concept discussed in economics per victor falk. For what it's worth, the article makes some sense if one is very familiar with the concepts it's referencing, but I can definitely see how it looks like gibberish. (It's always so adorable when economists try to do physics.) --Danger (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It needs work but the topic seems notable - see What Is So Austrian about Austrian Economics?, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While possibly a fringe theory, it appears to be a notable one to judge from these Google Scholar and Books searches, so rather than deleting, it needs improving to include criticisms of the idea or the terminology (e.g. from the 'strongly negative' review of the book in The Review of Austrian Economics doi:10.1007/BF01539340: "It would have been better, I think, to refer to the static uses of time as "neoclassical time" rather than "Newtonian time;' for the latter suggests that more is at stake than the misuse of time in economic analysis. But that is a quibble. The last subsection of their discussion of Newtonian time, "The Measurement of Time" (pp. 58-59), is dressed up in mathematical garb and is very difficult to understand;" (p195)). Personally I have serious doubts about including the article in the 'Time topics' navbox though, especially in its present state. Qwfp (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete?? Or perhaps make clear that this needs a complete re-write (by an expert???). Having looked at some of the references linked from this AfD I am simply dumbfounded. This concept seems to be a bizarre false analogy used by unintelligible philosopher/economists. It clearly belongs in some category like generalized theoretical pseudo-economics. I shall go away and try to search for "relativistic einsteinian time in economics". Dingo1729 (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adequate notability not established. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Clear enough there is references to this out there, regardless of peoples personal opinions to it. Mathmo ^Talk 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regardless of its notability etc., as completely incomprehensible to the educated lay reader. If this is a notable topic, it needs a complete rewrite so as to be understandable.  Sandstein  06:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't pretend to understand the subject, and Sandstein and others are right about the article's issues, but the topic appears notable and has refs, so I would rather err on the side of caution. Jusdafax 07:44, 9 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is BS barely supported by the sources cited. Perhaps it was not intended that way, but that's what it reads like. It's entirely based on one source, a book which has very bad reviews, e.g. [14] (Words stemming from "confusion", "bewilder", and "mislead" abound in this review.) Further, most of the wikilinks are wrong, because as it's amply explained in that review, O'Driscoll & Rizzo do not use real time and similar concepts in any standard sense, but have their own implied definitions. E.g. "Remember, the authors' whole idea of "real time" is that the present is connected to the past by memory and to the future by anticipation." This is contrasted to "static (or Newtonian)" time by which they mean "time treated as an independent mathematical variable". And if that's not enough, they don't even define their counter-theory: "There is nothing in von Mises that says that decision making is preordained or predetermined by what went before. So what is "dynamic subjectivism"? No clear answer can be found in chapter 2, or in the rest of the book. The confusion does not stop there." Perhaps a NPOV article on the book may be worthwhile, making this notion (if we can call it that) a redirect. But extracting the snippets of that book in an article written in "Wikipedia's voice", never mind the unsupported introductory stuff (because it misses the codebook needed to parse the rest) is really promotional of crap squared (how's that for Maths envy?) or plain gibberish. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I wrote some of the above in the article as well, so that someone reading it at least gets some info WTF it's about, but I still think we shouldn't have this article in Wikipedia. There really isn't anything of substance said in the article about "Newtonian time in economics", but it's rather a giant WP:COATRACK of an alternative (and poorly defined) theory of "real time", as defined/explained above. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per WP:WP is not bullshit, a weaker version of the policy that WP should follow the best most reliable sources, not the weirdest academics able to publish. (Following a comment at my talk page)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 16:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable fringe theory, with a badly-written and almost unreadable article. BigDom 16:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fringe, incoherent, and most importantly, non-notable (has no acceptance in economics aside from the original authors). —Lowellian (reply) 00:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to me to be a neologism based on a single book. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A simple search finds many sources, here =>[15][16] are two. The fact that the first reference cites a book about this and the Cambridge controversy allows me to logically conclude its importance. I will try to edit article in an attempt to invalidate the AfD nomination claims tomorrow. Why do people not put more effort into attempting to bring articles up to standard rather than deleting them, if an article is tagged AfD should this not be the last resort rather than a quick and dirty method to clean up Wikipedia? E2daipi (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your second link [17] is an automatically-generated page from some sort of news search engine / aggregator, and NONE of the content it turns up actually deals with the subject in question. I could type anything into that aggregator and turn up something; for example, if I type in the random nonsensical phrase "perilous times in three ducks" then I get [18], which does not prove "perilous times in three ducks" to be notable. And your first source [19] is an offering on Amazon, a 30-page manuscript, little more than a single paper, from an unknown publisher, from a small retailer (it's not even directly sold by Amazon.com, and anyone can put up any random pamphlet up for sale on Amazon.com), with no author given -- for all we know, the author is the originator of this fringe theory. Your first source is unreliable, and your second source is not even a real source. —Lowellian (reply) 16:49, 17 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. BigDom 16:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of sister cities in New England[edit]

List of sister cities in New England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Merge. Nice list. But of no value separately. Merge (distribute) into appropriate cities. This stand-alone list serves no particular purpose. See WP:NOTDIR. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These all tend to be "feel good" stuff which amounts to someone sending someone a letter now and then and a couple of people dropping in and announcing they are from x. In other words, puffery, which is fine. The world needs puffery. Even Wikipedia needs puffery. Just not at this level. Student7 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. - WP:notdir does not apply on any of its seven points. WP:INDISCRIMINATE likewise does not apply on any of its seven points. The list has a scope and is of a factual nature. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose but Split. Maybe this article would be better served if it was split into different articles. JB82 (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge- This information is simply not useful in this form and redundant at best. Sister cities are already listed on the city articles. Having a list of all of them is simply waisted space. Many other lists compile many things not as readily available as sister cities. If this info is not already in the city articles as it should be, it should be put in them, and this article should be deleted. --MJHankel (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sister cities program is notable, and there should be a list or lists of them. Unfortunately, a list of all of the cities in the nation would be too massive, and even this list seems too big. I tend to agree with JB82 that it might make more sense to make state articles. Those persons who are interested in the sister cities program generally-- i.e., checking to see which places have them-- pretty much do not have the time to do the one-by-one search that would come from limiting the information to the individual towns. I've never understood that argument anyway. Mandsford 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fact that the nomination is only for this one page, and does not include the other 94 page in Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities, suggests that the nominator is unaware of the importance that some people place on sister/twin city arrangements. Sister/twin arrangements are a notable topic, and there are far too many of them for one list, so Wikipedia has split the topic into articles (including this one) for specific countries, sub-national regions, states/provinces, New England. --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Besides the fact that sister cities are a notable topic, I like how this list is regionally based. While I can understand the usefulness of state-specific lists for larger states (see "List of sister cities in California"), regional lists are a nice way to do it for smaller states. Something as specific and as small as "Sister cities of Springfield, Illinois," on the other hand, I find to be better suited for a merging discussion than this one on New England. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly not indiscriminate and consolidates disparate information into a nice single location. Because the New England states are relatively small, grouping them together also makes sense rather than separating by state. --Polaron | Talk 15:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Nicely done list, useful content, concrete standards for inclusion, limited in scope, nicely documented. Why the hell is this being nominated for deletion again? Carrite (talk) 16:04, 9 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 close. And moving to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold On to Strings Better Left to Fray[edit]

Hold On to Strings Better Left to Fray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

According to several sources and the official website of this band, the title of this Album is "Holding on to Strings Better Left To Fray". This redirect isn't very useful and should be deprecated. SOURCE: http://seether.com/sub.asp?type=multimedia&sub=music Zlau92 (talk) 03:13, 9 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. BigDom 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Morawski[edit]

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

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

not notable. nowhere mentioned on Telstra.com website. *delete* Rmarsden (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absence of multiple reliable sources independent of subject that demonstrate notability. Article largely constructed by three single-subject authors. Appears to have been established for self-promotion or corporate promotion. Murtoa (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 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,   -- Lear's Fool 02:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Article does not show notability as written. FieldMarine (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:BIO. lack of coverage about him as an individual. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 16 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Da Edge[edit]

@ Da Edge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to be nothing more than speculation at this point and no indication as to why the the album will meet notability guidelines if/when if eventually does get released. _wjemather^bigissue 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to artist. Does not meet WP:NALBUM: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources." No release date, and cited coverage is mostly from promotional materials. Cmprince (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:13, 1 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,   -- Lear's Fool 02:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I suppose it could be a redirect to the artist. The problem with that is that the album may not even be released. --Stormbay (talk) 03:15, 9 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.